freedom-mcp

set_cac_strategy

Change this company's LTV:CAC strategy (the acquisition-spend posture): aggressive (2:1, early-stage growth), standard (3:1, recommended default), conservative (4:1, high churn / mature), or enterprise (5:1, long sales cycles). This governs marketing spend, so it is gated: an autonomous agent CANNOT apply it — surface a recommendation instead. Always call get_cac_strategy first and include a clear rationale when proposing a change.

[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

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional rationale for the change (stored with the policy).
`strategy`	Yes	The CAC posture: aggressive (2:1), standard (3:1), conservative (4:1), or enterprise (5:1).
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description thoroughly discloses behavioral context: gated operation requiring approval, sensitive-tier with manager approval possibly needed, and details on approval types (from-now-on vs just-once). No annotations present, so description fully bears this burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then usage caveats and approval details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, behavioral traits, and approval process. No output schema, but return value is implied. Slightly missing output description, but overall sufficient for a mutation tool.

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% with descriptions, but description adds value by explaining strategy options with LTV:CAC ratios and business contexts, plus note on optional rationale and companyId requirement beyond schema.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool changes the LTV:CAC strategy with specific posture options (aggressive, standard, conservative, enterprise) and explains each, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cac_strategy.

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?

Clear instructions: always call get_cac_strategy first, include a rationale, and note that autonomous agents cannot apply it—only surface a recommendation. Provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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?