Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

ratify_capability

Persist the operator-CONFIRMED derived features (from derive_capability) into the product capability index as source='derived'. Call ONLY with features the operator has ratified — each then becomes an authoritative capability the marketing agents and the Integrity Gate use. Idempotent (re-ratifying updates in place). Derived can't-do limits are drafted for awareness but authored separately for now.

Routing: Operator confirmed the derived features from derive_capability → persist them with this

[sensitive-tier — EVERY call needs a manager's approval (per-send human rail): each request queues its own approval card and sends exactly once on approve. There is no standing grant for this tool.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
featuresYesThe operator-confirmed features to persist. Each needs a title; description/solves/evidence/feature_id optional.
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
scan_hashNoOptional repo commit SHA the derivation came from (recorded for re-scan reconciliation).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (re-ratifying updates in place), the approval requirement (per-send human rail, no standing grant), and that derived can't-do limits are handled separately. No contradictions.

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 and is efficient. The sensitive-tier note adds important context without being verbose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (write with approval, idempotent), the description covers the flow, constraints, and idempotency. No output schema is present, but the write nature makes return values less critical. Completeness is good.

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 adds little beyond the schema: it repeats that features need a title and are operator-confirmed. No additional semantic detail is provided.

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 what the tool does: persist operator-confirmed derived features into the product capability index with source='derived'. It names the preceding tool (derive_capability) and the result (authoritative capability for marketing agents and Integrity Gate), making it distinct from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says to call ONLY with features the operator has ratified and provides routing context. The sensitive-tier note adds important usage constraints (manager approval per call). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternative tools.

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