freedom-mcp

propose_work

Create a new shared work-graph item (lab_work_items) so it is visible and coordinated across sessions and agents. Set depends_on to gate this item behind others (it starts blocked until they complete). Optionally pre-assign to an agent OR a user.

[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
`kind`	No	Kind of work (e.g. task, review, content). Default "task".
`title`	Yes	Short title of the work item.
`payload`	No	Optional structured detail for the item.
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`depends_on`	No	Optional array of lab_work_items UUIDs this item is blocked by.
`assignee_user_id`	No	Optional auth user UUID to assign (human owner). Cannot be combined with assignee_agent_id.
`assignee_agent_id`	No	Optional linnet_agents UUID to assign (agent owner).

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 includes important behavioral information: the write-tier approval process and that items start blocked if depends_on is set. This discloses authorization requirements and initial state, though it does not detail return value or side effects.

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 efficient with no filler: one paragraph stating purpose and usage, then a bracketed note on approval. Each sentence adds distinct information, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 and no output schema, the description covers creation, gating, assignment, and approval. However, it lacks explanation of what a work-graph item is, what the return value contains, and error scenarios. This leaves some gaps for an agent using the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that depends_on causes the item to start blocked and that assignee_user_id and assignee_agent_id are mutually exclusive (though not stated in schema). This enhances understanding beyond parameter names and types.

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 the tool creates a new shared work-graph item (lab_work_items), specifying the verb 'Create' and the resource. It immediately conveys visibility and coordination across sessions and agents, distinguishing it as a collaborative work item tool.

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 gives guidance on when to use depends_on for gating and how to pre-assign to agent or user, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_commitment or create_attention_directive. It lacks 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.

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?