Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request content revision

request_content_revision
Destructive

Request changes to a content item. Use when user says "revise this", "change the tone", "make it shorter", or provides feedback on pending content. The content will be re-transformed with their feedback.

[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. Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesID of the pipeline output to revise (get from get_pending_approvals)
feedbackYesUser's feedback on what to change (e.g., "make it shorter", "more professional tone")
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
as_final_draftNoWhen true, feedback IS the replacement post — save it without re-running the persona transform. Use when the operator already wrote the caption.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_final_draft
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, feedback IS the replacement post — save it without re-running the persona transform. Use when the operator already wrote the caption.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that the content 'will be re-transformed' and, importantly, details the write-tier approval workflow, including that a 'card is the yes' and not to re-ask in chat. This is useful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded and the approval note in a bracketed aside. Every sentence adds value, though the approval paragraph could be tightened without losing essential guidance.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the core behavior and approval flow, but it does not describe what happens after the request is submitted (e.g., return value or next step). The optional 'as_final_draft' param is left entirely to schema, which may be acceptable given its clear description.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description's examples of feedback duplicate schema content and add no new parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Request changes to a content item') and gives concrete trigger phrases ('revise this', 'change the tone', 'make it shorter'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the action described is sufficiently distinct from approval and publishing tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by listing user phrases that should trigger this tool and specifies it applies to 'pending content.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over approval/publish actions.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources