Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

remove_agent_activity

Retire ONE activity from an agent's plan. Soft-archive (recoverable): the activity is MOVED to jd_content.archived_activities and removed from the live plan, so the agent stops running it. Never hard-deletes.

[sensitive-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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional reason for retiring (recorded on the archive + audit log).
agent_idNoUUID of the agent. Optional if agent_name is provided.
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
agent_nameNoName of the agent. Provide this or agent_id.
activity_nameNoEXACT (case-insensitive) name of the activity to retire. Provide this or activity_index.
activity_indexNo0-based index into the activity plan. Alternative to activity_name.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a soft-archive (recoverable), not a hard delete, and that the activity is moved to an archived collection. It also notes potential approval requirements. This provides good insight into behavior and 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two paragraphs: the first covers the main action and mechanism, the second covers approval tiers. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps sentences succinct. Some could argue the approval note adds length, but it is contextually useful.

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?

The description explains the effect (archive, stop running) and recoverability, and mentions audit log recording. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify what the return value or success/failure signals are. For a mutation tool, this is a gap. Overall, it covers most essential context but lacks completion on response details.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it provides context for the action but not detailed parameter relationships or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retires one activity from an agent's plan with a specific verb ('Retire') and resource ('activity from agent's plan'). It explains the soft-archive mechanism and that it's recoverable, distinguishing it from hard-deletion or other modification tools.

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 implies when to use (to retire an activity) and mentions a sensitive-tier requiring approval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'update_agent_activity' or 'deactivate_agent', nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is present but incomplete.

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