freedom-mcp

get_check_telemetry

Read recent quality-check telemetry for the current company. Returns per-(run,check) verdicts (pass/fail/flag/hold/error/skipped) across the brand/legal/ethics/security gates, the Pledge stamp, the ICP consult, and the craft gate — so you can see which checks fire findings, which HOLD content (false-hold rate), and which run clean. Use it to answer 'which gate holds the most for this company' or 'has the security gate ever fired on these posts'. Free-text preview fields are tagged as data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max rows to return (default 50, hard cap 200).
`verdict`	No	Optional filter: pass \| fail \| flag \| hold \| error \| skipped.
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`check_name`	No	Optional filter: brand \| legal \| ethics \| security \| pledge_stamp \| icp_quality \| craft.
`content_grain`	No	Optional filter by content grain (the safety/topic axis).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it returns recent telemetry, lists verdict types, and mentions free-text preview fields tagged as data. It doesn't discuss authentication or rate limits but is adequate for a read operation.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and providing useful enumeration of gates. Could be slightly more concise but is effective.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (verdicts per run/check, gates, preview fields) and provides example use cases, making it complete for a read-telemetry tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add additional detail beyond the schema. For example, 'content_grain' is not elaborated beyond the schema description. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 reads quality-check telemetry, lists specific gates and verdicts, and distinguishes from sibling 'run_quality_check' which runs checks. The verb 'Read' indicates a read-only operation.

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 concrete example queries like 'which gate holds the most' and 'has the security gate ever fired', guiding the agent on when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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?