freedom-mcp

generate_vector_image

Generate a native SVG vector image using Recraft V4 Pro Vector. The ONLY tool that outputs true SVG with editable paths. Best for logos, icons, brand marks, vector illustrations, and scalable graphics for Framer animations.

Routing: SVG/vector/logo/icon/brand mark/scalable graphics → use this (3 credits)

[sensitive-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

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Size in WxH format (e.g., "1024x1024") or aspect ratio (e.g., "1:1", "16:9"). Defaults to 1024x1024.
`folder`	No	Optional Media gallery folder to file this into (freeform name, e.g. "q3-campaign" or "brand-assets"). Shown as a folder chip on the /media page. Reuse an existing folder name when the work belongs to it.
`prompt`	Yes	Detailed description of the vector image. Include style, colors, subject, composition. Be specific about the visual style — "minimalist line art logo", "flat vector icon", "geometric brand mark".
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`folder_name`	No	Subfolder name for Drive save (e.g., "Logos", "Icons", "Brand"). Only used when save_to_drive is true.
`save_to_drive`	No	If true, also save the SVG to Google Drive for permanent storage. Defaults to false.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the model used, credit cost, and approval process (first use may require a manager's approval, with types of approval explained). However, it does not detail what happens to the generated SVG (e.g., storage, retrievability) or clarify if the tool is destructive or idempotent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, front-loading the core purpose and unique selling point within the first sentence. It efficiently covers use cases, routing, credit cost, and approval details in a few sentences without unnecessary fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the output type (SVG with editable paths) and use cases well. However, it omits how the generated SVG is returned (e.g., URL, file) and does not address how to handle the output, which is essential for an agent. Also lacks mention of any side effects or state changes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already clearly describes all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states it generates native SVG vector images using Recraft V4 Pro Vector, explicitly claims it is the ONLY tool that outputs true SVG with editable paths, and lists specific use cases like logos, icons, and brand marks. This distinguishes it well from sibling image generation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit routing ('SVG/vector/logo/icon/brand mark/scalable graphics → use this') and mentions credit cost (3 credits) and sensitivity tier with manager approval, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to alternatives like generate_image_xai. However, the unique claim of being the only SVG tool makes usage clear.

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

All freedom-mcp tools Inspect

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

Need Help?