Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

split_agent_activity

Split ONE oversized activity into smaller activities (intake + finish) without regenerating the rest of the plan. Use when a run hit the continuation safety backstop while still progressing — the activity is bigger than one deliverable.

[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
piecesNoOptional precomputed replacement activities (name, frequency, description, …). When omitted, derived from the source.
reasonNoOptional reason 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_nameYesExact (case-insensitive) name of the oversized activity to split.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds context about splitting into 'intake + finish' and non-regeneration, and mentions approval tier. However, it does not disclose whether the original activity is deleted/archived, idempotency, or other side effects beyond splitting.

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?

Two main sentences plus a bracketed approval note. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage scenario. Efficient but the approval note could be integrated or shortened slightly.

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?

Covers purpose and usage but omits output or return value (no output schema). For a mutating tool, it would be helpful to know if it returns the new activities or confirmation. Adequate but incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what schema descriptions already provide (e.g., 'pieces', 'reason', 'agent_id'). No additional parameter guidance given.

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 clearly states 'Split ONE oversized activity into smaller activities' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_agent_activity by noting 'without regenerating the rest of the plan', making its purpose unique.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a run hit the continuation safety backstop while still progressing — the activity is bigger than one deliverable.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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