freedom-mcp

publish_pipeline_item

Publish approved INTERNAL content to configured output. ROUTING: team_update sends to all team members via Freedom OS, report sends to specified team member emails, customer_newsletter requires user Email MCP connection (Mailchimp, Resend, etc.), changelog publishes to public changelog page. ⚠️ SOCIAL POSTS (x/linkedin/instagram/facebook/threads) never send from this tool: declare the pipeline destination via update_pipeline and submit via submit_content_to_pipeline — the post queues for operator approval and publishes through the single gated owner on approve (in FreedomOS app chat, send_to_user with intent "publish" queues the same approval). Use when an approved non-social item — changelog, team update, report, or newsletter — is ready to send.

[outbound-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
`item_id`	Yes	ID of the approved pipeline output to publish (get from get_pending_approvals, must be approved status)
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`recipients`	No	Optional. Specific team member emails to send to (must be in company_members). If not specified, sends to all team members.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses routing behavior, social post exclusion, and the outbound-tier approval mechanism (first-use, from-now-on, just-once). However, it does not cover error conditions or what happens if the item is not approved, but the approved status is implied in the first sentence.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by routing details, a clear warning, usage instruction, and an approval note. Each sentence is informative, though slightly lengthy. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (routing types, social post exclusion, approval tiers), the description covers all necessary facets for correct agent invocation. It explains when and how to use, what not to use, and important behavioral notes, leaving little room for confusion.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking the 'recipients' parameter to the 'report' routing type and implying that destinations are configured elsewhere. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it publishes approved internal content to configured output. It specifies routing types (team_update, report, customer_newsletter, changelog) and explicitly distinguishes from social posts, which are handled by other tools. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Guidelines are explicit: 'Use when an approved non-social item ... is ready to send.' It also details when NOT to use (social posts) and directs to alternative tools (update_pipeline, submit_content_to_pipeline). The outbound-tier approval note adds context on authorization expectations.

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?