freedom-mcp

manage_responsibilities

Assign, delegate, or revoke responsibility domains for team members. This controls routing — which user receives agent output for specific domains like marketing, finance, etc.

[write-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
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`reason`	No	Why the change is happening (e.g., "vacation", "new hire", "role change")
`domains`	No	Domain names to assign (e.g., ["marketing", "content", "social"]). Use lowercase.
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`valid_until`	No	ISO date string when delegation expires. Only for delegate action. Omit for permanent assignments.
`target_user_email`	No	Email of the user to assign/delegate to. Required for assign and delegate.
`delegation_from_email`	No	Email of the user delegating their responsibilities. Only for delegate action.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining the write-tier approval process (first-use approval, from-now-on vs just-once). This informs the agent about authorization requirements, which is critical for correct invocation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences plus a short bracketed note. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides essential approval context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core function and authorization behavior. It lacks detail on success/error responses or effects on existing assignments, but the parameters are well-documented in the schema, so overall completeness is high.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates actions (assign, delegate, revoke) and domain examples but does not add meaningful detail beyond what's in the schema's parameter descriptions. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Description clearly states the tool assigns, delegates, or revokes responsibility domains for team members. It distinguishes the tool's purpose as controlling routing of agent output per domain, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'revoke_agent_tool' or 'get_routing_overview'. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 context on what the tool does (routing control) and mentions approval tier behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_routing_overview' to view assignments). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are 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?