Admin Substitute

analytics.detailed

Read-only

Detailed business analytics: conversion funnel, revenue trends, lead sources, response times, outstanding invoices, and communication stats. Requires Growth plan or above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Analysis period: 30, 60, or 90 days. Defaults to 30.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`funnel`	No	Lead → Quote → Job → Paid conversion funnel with counts and rates
`revenue`	No	Revenue breakdown: total, average job value, outstanding
`leadSources`	No	Lead count by source (website, referral, hipages, etc)
`responseTimes`	No	Average response time to new leads
`communications`	No	SMS and email send counts and delivery stats

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the analytics nature. The description adds a behavioral detail (subscription plan requirement) not covered by annotations, enhancing transparency.

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?

Two succinct sentences convey the purpose, scope, and access requirement with zero redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 output schema exists and only one parameter, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It could mention that data is read-only (but annotations handle that) or typical use cases, but overall is complete.

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% with a well-described enum parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detailed business analytics') and enumerates concrete metrics (conversion funnel, revenue trends, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like analytics.dashboard (likely overview) and analytics.financials (likely financial-specific).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only states a precondition ('Requires Growth plan or above') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analytics.dashboard or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Admin Substitute 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.

Tool Count1/5

95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.

Resources

Need Help?