Admin Substitute

hiring.capacity_analysis

Read-only

Analyse a solo tradesperson's capacity utilisation and determine if they've hit the ceiling. Returns capacity score (0-100), burnout risk, estimated lost revenue from declined work, and hiring urgency level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`avgWaitDays`	No	Average days before a new job can start
`jobsPerWeek`	No	Average jobs completed per week
`reviewTrend`	No	Are reviews trending up, flat, or down?
`avgReviewScore`	No	Average review score (1-5)
`monthlyRevenue`	Yes	Average monthly revenue ($)
`averageJobValue`	Yes	Average value of a job ($)
`leadDeclineRate`	No	Percentage of leads turned away (0-100)
`weeklyAdminHours`	Yes	Hours per week on admin (quoting, invoicing, scheduling)
`weeklyBillableHours`	Yes	Hours per week doing billable trade work

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description describes a read-only analysis operation, which matches the readOnlyHint annotation. No additional behavioral details are provided beyond what the annotation already conveys, but there is no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that clearly states the purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 description covers the main outputs and is sufficient given the presence of a detailed input schema and output schema. It could mention the required parameters, but the schema handles that.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 9 parameters with descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes capacity utilization for solo tradespeople and returns specific metrics (capacity score, burnout risk, lost revenue, hiring urgency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hiring.readiness_score or hiring.cost_calculator.

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 implies the tool is used to determine if a tradesperson has hit their capacity ceiling, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other hiring or analytics tools, nor any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios.

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?