Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

remove_background

Remove the background from an existing image, leaving the main subject isolated on a transparent background (PNG).

Routing: "isolate the subject", "make background transparent", "remove background" → use this (1 credit)

[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
folderNoOptional Media gallery folder to file this into (freeform name, e.g. "q3-campaign" or "brand-assets"). Shown as a folder chip on the /media page. Reuse an existing folder name when the work belongs to it.
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
image_urlNoURL of the raster image to process.
artifact_idNoID of an existing artifact from the MEDIA block.
folder_nameNoSubfolder name for Drive save.
save_to_driveNoIf true, saves to Drive.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the output format (transparent background PNG), credit cost, and approval flow (manager approval for first use, with options for permanent or one-time approval). Missing details on error handling or parameter conflicts, but sufficient for a read-only-like image processing tool.

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 concise, with two main sections: the core action and the routing/approval note. It is front-loaded with the primary function. The approval details could be more compact, but overall it is efficient.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover what the tool returns (e.g., URL of processed image). It only mentions the output format but not the actual return type. This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the result structure.

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%, so the schema already describes all 6 parameters. The description adds routing keywords but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 removes the background from an image, leaving the subject isolated on a transparent background in PNG format. It includes routing keywords ('isolate the subject', 'make background transparent', 'remove background') that distinguish it from siblings, none of which perform exactly this task.

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 provides routing keywords and mentions credit cost (1 credit) and sensitive-tier approval, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the routing covers common intents.

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