Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

submit_product_request

File a bug report or feature request about FreedomOS the platform (FO UI, MCP tools, Command Center, auth, connectors, FO agents runtime) with the FreedomOS product team. Creates a FO product-inbox Command Center card and returns a request_id you can poll with get_product_request_status. ONLY for FreedomOS itself broken, missing, or confusing. Do NOT use for: (1) tenant ops (hire agents, send email, OKRs, content); (2) YOUR OWN company product — app code, domain knowledge base, chatbot/SME retrieval, compliance corpus, state/regulatory overlays, or anything your team can ship without FO engineers. Own-product gaps stay on YOUR company Command Center (decision/report card, collaboration, knowledge pipeline, or escalate to your human as product work). Example misroute: Conduit agent filing PCAI state-overlay KB work here — wrong inbox; file on Conduit instead.

Routing: When the USER says something in FreedomOS itself is broken, missing, or confusing ("this button does nothing", "I wish it could…", "this is a bug", "can you debug this?" about FO product), this is the tool — FILE FIRST. Bias: submit_product_request(kind:"bug"|feature|upgrade) before opening a live coding host or Send-to-Grok/Claude. REFUSE this tool for own-product / domain work: knowledge corpus, retrieval quality, compliance packs, chatbot answers for YOUR product (e.g. Compounding AI / PCAI), marketing claims about your app — keep those on the source company rail (Command Center card for your operator, suggest_collaboration, save_knowledge, Compliance Check), never FO product inbox. TRIAGE FIRST, briefly: if your own tools can resolve it right now (a reconnect, a setting, the wrong page), fix it and say so instead of filing — filing is never an exit from work you can finish yourself. Cap triage at one or two quick checks, never a debugging quest in chat. An explicit "file it" from the user always wins: file immediately, no pushback — and fold whatever you ruled out into the description. Pull title/repro from the conversation (never make them fill a form), TELL them you filed it, and that the factory/product team picks it up. Live-terminal / attention-directive / Send to Grok or Claude ONLY when the user explicitly asks to open a host session now (e.g. "send this to Grok", "debug with me live") — never as the default path for a product bug. For errors YOU hit doing tenant work (not FO product defects), use report_feedback instead.

[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.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesbug = FO broken; feature = FO missing capability; upgrade = toolchain/security remediation (dep majors, patch-safe upgrades — not a user-facing feature); question = how-to for the FreedomOS team. Not for your own app/product backlog.
titleYesOne-line summary. Specific: "Connect CTA dumps to Smart Tools instead of OAuth" not "bug".
severityNoDefault medium. critical = data loss / security / blocked onboarding.
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
descriptionYesWhat happened / what you need. Include repro steps, expected vs actual, company name, agent name if relevant.
repro_stepsNoOptional numbered repro steps.
suggested_fixNoOptional: what a good fix would look like (agent hypothesis — product team decides).
source_agent_nameNoOptional: which of the operator's agents hit this (e.g. "Linnet", "Morgan").

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a FO product-inbox Command Center card and returns a request_id that can be polled with get_product_request_status. It also mentions a potential write-tier approval requirement. While it doesn't detail every side effect (e.g., visibility of the card, persistence), it covers the key behavioral traits for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is quite long (multiple paragraphs). While it is structured with bold headings and front-loads key purpose and usage, it contains extensive routing logic that could be considered verbose for a typical tool description. Some sentences feel redundant or too detailed for quick scanning. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 required, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, routing, return value, and approval notes. Missing details like error handling or output format are minor. The description adequately prepares an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds some contextual guidance (e.g., how to use kind values, pulling title/repro from conversation), but it does not significantly expand the meaning provided by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is for filing bug reports or feature requests specifically about the FreedomOS platform. It uses specific verb+resource ('File a bug report or feature request about FreedomOS the platform') and distinguishes from alternative tools by explicitly listing what not to use it for, including tenant ops and own-product work. It also references report_feedback as the appropriate sibling for errors during tenant work.

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?

The description provides exceptionally detailed usage guidance. It specifies exactly when to use the tool (FreedomOS broken/missing/confusing), when not to (tenant ops, own product), and gives explicit examples of misrouting. It includes a bias toward filing before other actions like live coding, a triage-first instruction, and a note that explicit user 'file it' overrides all pushback. This is comprehensive and leaves little ambiguity.

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