freedom-mcp

vectorize_image

Convert an existing raster image (PNG, JPG, WebP) to SVG vector format using Recraft. Preserves details and creates clean vector paths.

Routing: "vectorize this", "convert to SVG", "make scalable" → use this (1 credit)

[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

Name	Required	Description
`folder`	No	Optional Media gallery folder to file this into (freeform name, e.g. "q3-campaign" or "brand-assets"). Shown as a folder chip on the /media page. Reuse an existing folder name when the work belongs to it.
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`image_url`	No	URL of the raster image to vectorize. Use a signed URL from the MEDIA IN THIS CONVERSATION block or any accessible image URL.
`artifact_id`	No	ID of an existing artifact from the MEDIA IN THIS CONVERSATION block. The system will resolve a fresh signed URL automatically.
`folder_name`	No	Subfolder name for Drive save. Only used when save_to_drive is true.
`save_to_drive`	No	If true, also save the vectorized SVG to Google Drive. Defaults to false.
`isolate_subject`	No	Smart Workflow: If true, the tool will automatically remove the background to isolate the subject BEFORE vectorizing. Defaults to true. Set to false ONLY if you want to vectorize the entire scene including the background.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. Discloses use of Recraft, credit cost, and sensitive-tier approval process, but omits side effects, error handling, or permissions details.

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?

Relatively short with three distinct sections (purpose, routing, approval info), front-loaded. No wasted sentences, but could be more streamlined.

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?

Description covers core conversion but lacks comprehensive context for a 7-parameter tool. Missing details on required prerequisites, output format, or behavior in edge cases.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions; the main description adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb 'Convert' with specific resource ('raster image to SVG'), supported formats listed, and explicit routing keywords. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on existing images rather than generation.

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?

Provides specific routing phrases and credit cost, but does not explicitly compare against sibling 'generate_vector_image' for distinction. Still, gives strong positive guidance for when to use.

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?