Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

enroll_by_segment

Enroll every contactable lead carrying one exact segment tag into an outreach sequence — one call, no pasted address list. Same server-side safety re-validation as the Leads tab Enroll button and enroll_leads_in_sequence (do-not-contact, archived, and inactive leads are excluded and reported, never enrolled); already-enrolled leads are left untouched. By default it also SKIPS leads currently mid-flight in another sequence so a segment blast cannot double-touch someone. Use when the operator says "enroll/email everyone in ". Enrolling causes the sequencer to DRAFT emails into the review queue — nothing is sent without human approval in Review drafts. Report ONLY what this tool returns; never claim sends or scheduling beyond it. This tool never sends email and never touches drafts.

Routing: CRM/sales → enroll a whole segment / everyone with this tag into a sequence → use this

[write-tier — first use may require a manager's approval; a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional — max leads to enroll in this call (default 500, which is also the hard ceiling).
sequenceYesThe sequence to enroll into — its name or id (from list_sequences). Own-company sequences and system defaults are valid.
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
segment_tagYesExact segment tag token from crm_leads.source, e.g. 'csv:free-trial'. No substring matching — must match a live tag exactly (see list_segments).
exclude_activeNoOptional — skip leads that already have a queued/active enrollment in ANOTHER sequence, so a segment blast does not double-touch them. Default true.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations were provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states: server-side safety validation (excludes DNC, archived, inactive), already-enrolled leads untouched, default skip of mid-flight leads, only drafts email into review queue (nothing sent), and a write-tier approval caveat. This exceeds the burden without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then progressively details safety, defaults, routing, and approval notes. Every sentence adds unique value, and the structure is easy to scan. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the return contract ('report ONLY what this tool returns'), side effects (drafting emails, never sending), and important constraints (exact tag matching, default skip). It is fully complete for the agent to invoke correctly without needing an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the default limit and ceiling, and explaining the rationale for 'exclude_active' default true. However, some parameter descriptions (like 'companyId') are generic and don't gain extra value from the text. A marginal improvement over the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('enroll'), specifies the resource ('contactable lead carrying one exact segment tag'), and clearly distinguishes the action from alternatives (contrasts with 'pasted address list', references sibling tool 'enroll_leads_in_sequence'). The routing section ('CRM/sales → enroll a whole segment') further clarifies the tool's niche.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('operator says "enroll/email everyone in <segment>"'), what it does not do ('never claim sends or scheduling beyond it', 'never sends email and never touches drafts'), and implies when not to use (e.g., when a pasted address list is available, use enroll_leads_in_sequence instead). This is comprehensive guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All freedom-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is heavily disambiguated by detailed routing descriptions, domain prefixes, and lifecycle verbs, so most tools have a clear intended purpose. However, at 297 tools there are still close pairs and overlapping decision surfaces (e.g., approval workflows, 'what should I work on' readers, multiple finance/ads readers) that require careful description reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is predominantly consistent snake_case verb_noun with strong domain prefixes like shopify_, x_, posthog_, and list_/create_/update_ patterns. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as several collection-returning tools using get_ (get_team_members, get_icps, get_okrs) instead of list_, and some generate_ vs create_ vs draft_ verbs, but the pattern is still predictable overall.

Tool Count1/5

297 tools is an extreme outlier and far beyond a usable MCP tool surface. Even a large suite has no justification for this count in one server; the agent would struggle to select among hundreds of similarly descriptive tools, and the natural 3-15 tool range is exceeded by nearly 20x.

Completeness4/5

The individual domains represented — OKRs, CRM/leads, Shopify, content pipelines, ads, PostHog, team hiring, knowledge, finance, and session management — are covered remarkably well with full lifecycle patterns. Minor gaps exist, such as no full deal CRUD, no delete for several Google/Shopify artifacts, and some analytical surfaces being read-heavy, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources