Admin Substitute

billing.list_plans

Read-only

List all available plans with pricing, features, limits, and feature flags. Public information — useful for discovering what plans exist before purchasing or upgrading.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plans`	No	Array of plan objects with slug, name, price, features, limits, feature_flags
`currency`	No	Currency code (AUD)
`billing_cycles`	No	Available billing cycles
`yearly_discount_pct`	No	Yearly billing discount percentage

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Public information' adds limited value. It does not contradict annotations but also does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two short sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and end with a use case. Every word contributes, and there is no extraneous information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters, an output schema (not shown but noted), and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the data returned and the appropriate context for use, leaving no significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 'List' and resource 'all available plans with pricing, features, limits, and feature flags'. It clearly distinguishes this from other billing tools like 'billing.status' or 'billing.usage' by focusing on plan discovery.

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 description explicitly states the tool is for discovering plans before purchasing or upgrading, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of fully comprehensive guidelines.

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?