Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

get_setup_state

Get the company's core-tenet setup completeness — mission, vision, OKRs, finances, ICP, branding, team, integrations, product, revenue channels, ICP agent model — each as done/empty/blocked/n_a/unknown, with a score, the next best setup step, and the tool to fix each gap. Derived live from current data. Use this to know what a company still needs set up before doing strategy work. WISDOM-FIRST: mission and vision are operator-authored — do NOT author or invent them. OKRs show "blocked" until mission AND vision are set; never invent OKR numbers from an empty wisdom layer — escalate to the operator.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses live derivation, non-authoring constraints for mission/vision, and OKR blocking logic. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state no side effects or authorization needs, which could be improved.

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 well-structured with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence is lengthy. Overall efficient.

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?

The description adequately covers the return structure (statuses, score, next step, tool) and special cases (wisdom layer, OKR blocking). No output schema exists, but the description compensates reasonably well.

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% with a clear companyId description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 identifies the tool as a getter for setup completeness across multiple aspects (mission, vision, OKRs, etc.), specifying the returned statuses and additional outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_okrs or get_company by offering an aggregated status view.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to know what a company still needs set up before doing strategy work.' The 'WISDOM-FIRST' section provides critical behavioral guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list 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 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