freedom-mcp

get_command_center_items

List Command Center cards for the company (pending by default; pass status_filter for approved/denied/snoozed/all). Returns decisions AND first-class update/report cards (Call minutes, reports) — they are pinned onto the pending page and counted in type_counts. Pass q= to find a named title (e.g. "call minutes") across rank/limit. Also: source agent, priority, age, task type, approval_status, available_actions, resolution_progress, content PREVIEW only — use get_command_center_item with an id for full content. Pending mode ranks most-actionable first and names featured; other status filters (including 'all') are chronological oldest-first unless q= is set (then newest matches).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Case-insensitive title search (min 2 chars). Use when the operator names a card ("call minutes", a company). Finds update/report cards that ranking would otherwise bury.
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default: 25)
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`task_type`	No	Optional type filter (update, report, decision, alert, …). Use when they ask only for minutes or only for decisions.
`status_filter`	No	Filter by status. Default: "pending". Options: pending, approved, denied, snoozed, all

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses content preview limitations, ranking behavior per status, type_counts inclusion, and the 'featured' field in pending mode. This goes well beyond a generic list description and covers important behavioral nuances.

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 dense and information-packed with a logical flow: core purpose, key features, parameter hints, caveats, and ordering details. It is longer than ideal but every sentence contributes critical details, and the front-loading of the main action helps quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the default status, all status_filter behaviors, q search semantics, return field highlights (source agent, priority, etc.), content preview limitation, and directs to the singular tool for full content. No significant gap remains.

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?

The input schema already documents all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics for q (finding named titles across rank/limit) and status_filter (behavioral differences between pending and other statuses), earning a 4 but not a 5 since it does not add syntax or format specifics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Command Center cards for the company', clearly distinguishing this list tool from its sibling get_command_center_item (which it explicitly mentions returns full content). It specifies the pending default and status_filter options, fully identifying the tool's scope and purpose.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: when to pass status_filter, when to use q for named titles, and explicitly directs to get_command_center_item for full content. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives (e.g., decide_command_center_item) but the guidance given is specific and actionable.

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?