Admin Substitute

hiring.readiness_score

Read-only

Calculate hiring readiness score across financial, operational, and systems dimensions. Recommends apprentice vs employee vs contractor vs admin-first hire based on business metrics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`avgJobValue`	No	Average job value ($)
`weeklyHours`	Yes	Owner weekly hours
`monthlyProfit`	Yes	Average monthly profit ($)
`monthlyRevenue`	Yes	Average monthly revenue ($)
`pipelineMonths`	No	Months of work in pipeline
`adminHoursPercent`	No	Percentage of time on admin (0-100)
`cashReserveMonths`	No	Months of cash reserves
`declinedLeadPercent`	No	Percentage of leads declined (0-100)
`hasDocumentedProcesses`	No	Are core processes documented?
`hasJobManagementSoftware`	No	Using job management software?

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?

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description ('Calculate... Recommends') confirms read-only behavior. The description adds context about the recommendation output but does not disclose additional traits like required inputs or edge cases beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loading the primary action in the first sentence. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output recommendation. It lacks details on expected parameter ranges or usage context but remains sufficient for selection.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not enhance understanding.

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 states 'Calculate hiring readiness score' and specifies it 'Recommends apprentice vs employee vs contractor vs admin-first hire', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'scaling.readiness_score' by focusing on hiring dimensions.

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 usage for hiring readiness assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scaling.readiness_score' or other analytics tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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?