freedom-mcp

Suggest collaboration

suggest_collaboration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create a cross-agent collaboration request. Use when one agent identifies work that another agent should handle, or when the analysis reveals a gap that could be filled by an existing team member. Holdco chairs (Commander) are not teammates — class evidence is flagged for the holdco sweep, not hired onto this company. If the target role doesn't exist on the team and is not a holdco chair, mention it as a hiring opportunity instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`priority`	No	How urgent is this collaboration request
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`to_agent_name`	Yes	Name of the target agent, or a role description if the agent doesn't exist yet
`from_agent_name`	Yes	Name of the agent suggesting the collaboration (e.g., "Maya", "Evan")
`task_description`	Yes	What needs to be done — specific and actionable
`instance_card_ids`	No	Optional card ids that are instances of this class. When the target is a holdco chair, these are flagged on the company rail for the holdco sweep.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / instance_card_ids

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional card ids that are instances of this class. When the target is a holdco chair, these are flagged on the company rail for the holdco sweep.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedJul 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description's 'Create a cross-agent collaboration request' directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation, which implies no state change. It does not disclose side effects, persistence, or clarify that 'create' is metaphorical. This is a clear annotation contradiction and a serious transparency failure.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy: purpose, usage triggers, exclusion/exception, and alternative. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains when to use the tool but not what actually happens when it is used. It mentions 'flagged' and 'hiring opportunity' but does not clarify the output or follow-up actions. Combined with the readOnlyHint contradiction, an agent cannot confidently predict the tool's effect, especially with no output schema to fill the gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning about to_agent_name (role vs. existing agent) and instance_card_ids (holdco sweep), but it does not substantially deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a cross-agent collaboration request.' It also distinguishes the tool from related actions by explicitly excluding holdco chairs and routing non-existent roles to hiring opportunities, making its scope clear against siblings like hire_agent_with_context or propose_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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios ('one agent identifies work that another agent should handle' or 'a gap that could be filled by an existing team member') and explicit when-not-to-use with alternatives (holdco chairs are excluded, hiring opportunities are suggested instead). This is exemplary usage 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

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

Need Help?