freedom-mcp

update_knowledge_section

Update a specific section of a knowledge file by its ## header. If the section exists, its content is replaced. If it doesn't exist, it's appended as a new section. Use this for surgical edits to guidelines or strategies without rewriting the entire file.

[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

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The slug of the knowledge file to update
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`new_content`	Yes	The new Markdown content for this section (replaces everything between this ## and the next ##). Use proper Markdown: blank lines between paragraphs, - for list items, ### for sub-headers. Never use bold as a substitute for headers.
`section_header`	Yes	The ## section header to find and replace (case-insensitive). If not found, appended as a new section.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description discloses the replace-or-append behavior and includes approval tier information ('write-tier' with manager approval). Without annotations, it provides good behavioral context, though it could elaborate on potential pitfalls like erroneous matching.

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 description is front-loaded with core functionality in the first sentence, followed by behavioral nuance. The second paragraph on approvals is relevant but slightly wordy. Overall, no superfluous content.

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?

Tool has no output schema, but the description omits return behavior (e.g., success confirmation, error scenarios). Given its simple update/addition function, it is mostly adequate but could be more complete with expected outcomes.

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 already provides full descriptions for all 4 required parameters (100% coverage). The description largely reiterates the schema's content (case-insensitive matching, Markdown format) without adding significant new meaning, meeting baseline expectations.

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 the tool updates a specific section of a knowledge file by its ## header, with explicit behavior for existing (replace) and non-existing (append) sections. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_knowledge or delete_knowledge by emphasizing surgical edits.

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?

Description advises using this tool for surgical edits without rewriting the entire file, implying when to use. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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?