Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update agent activity

update_agent_activity
Destructive

Edit ONE existing activity in an agent's plan — change its name, description, frequency, tools_used, deliverable, or completion_criteria. Surgical alternative to regenerating the whole plan.

[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
patchYesFields to change. Only the supplied fields are updated.
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_nameNoExact (case-insensitive) name of the activity to edit. Provide this or activity_index.
activity_indexNo0-based index into the activity plan. Alternative to activity_name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / frequency / description
      Previous value: -"New frequency."New value: +"New frequency. weekdays = once each Mon–Fri in America/Los_Angeles; weekends do not run."
    • changedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / frequency / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "daily",
-  "weekly",
-  "biweekly",
-  "monthly",
-  "quarterly",
-  "once",
-  "as_needed",
-  "on_demand"
-]New value: +[
+  "daily",
+  "weekdays",
+  "weekly",
+  "biweekly",
+  "monthly",
+  "quarterly",
+  "once",
+  "as_needed",
+  "on_demand"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"New activity name (re-keys the scheduler — see usage)."New value: +"New activity name — re-keys the scheduler (run-history/cadence is keyed on name, so a rename makes the activity eligible to run again under the new name and resets its history). The matching deliverable-queue entry is renamed in the same write; the tool returns a note when this happens."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / linked_kr_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Rebind this loop to a Key Result. Pick the Key Result this loop moves. Clearing is not legal — unbind is retire.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / max_iterations / description
      Previous value: -"Per-activity tool-loop iteration budget (clamped 5–30; default 10). Raise for read-heavy deploy-class activities that legitimately spend many calls on reads/verification before the actuating step."New value: +"Per-activity tool-loop iteration budget (clamped 5–30; default 15, higher for multi-tool plans). Raise for read-heavy deploy-class activities that legitimately spend many calls on reads/verification before the actuating step."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the write-tier approval workflow, the difference between 'from-now-on' and 'just-once' approvals, and the instruction to treat the card as the yes rather than re-asking in chat. No contradiction with 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 main sentence is dense and front-loaded, immediately establishing the tool's scope and purpose. The write-tier parenthetical is useful but somewhat long-winded, and the parameter enumeration could have been trimmed since the schema already lists the fields.

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?

The definition is largely complete: it states the operation, scope, editable fields, approval behavior, and the key 'surgical' use case. The schema covers all parameter semantics and annotations cover safety, though return behavior is left implicit and explicit sibling routing to add/remove/split tools is absent.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the top-level description adds little parameter detail. The description repeats only a subset of the fields (name, description, frequency, tools_used, deliverable, completion_criteria) and omits others like priority, workaround, linked_kr_id, delivery_shape, and max_iterations; the schema itself carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with 'Edit ONE existing activity in an agent's plan,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope, then lists the editable fields. It positions itself as a 'surgical alternative to regenerating the whole plan,' but does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like add_agent_activity or remove_agent_activity.

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 phrase 'Surgical alternative to regenerating the whole plan' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: use it for a targeted edit rather than rewriting everything. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use cases or name alternatives such as add/remove/split activity, but the one-activity scope and approval note provide practical 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 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