freedom-mcp

get_transactions

List company transactions with optional filters. Use for expense tracking, transaction review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results to return (default: 25, max: 100)
`status`	No	Filter by status
`date_to`	No	End date filter (ISO format)
`category`	No	Filter by category
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`date_from`	No	Start date filter (ISO format, e.g., 2026-01-01)
`is_income`	No	Filter to income (true) or expenses (false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a listing behavior with optional filters, omitting details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. The word 'list' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more contextual detail without becoming verbose.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how filters combine. For a list tool with good schema descriptions, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond 'optional filters'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 'List company transactions with optional filters' with specific verbs and resources, and mentions use cases 'for expense tracking, transaction review'. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_transactions' which may offer more extensive filtering.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides general use cases ('expense tracking, transaction review') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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?