Admin Substitute

jobs.complete

Idempotent

Mark a job as completed. Optionally record satisfaction rating and trigger an automatic review request. This is the recommended end-of-job action. Requires: job_id from jobs.list. Next steps: invoicing.generate → payments.send_link → reviews.request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jobId`	Yes	Job ID to mark as completed. Required.
`notes`	No	Completion notes (e.g. "Replaced hot water system, tested and working"). Optional.
`satisfaction`	No	Client satisfaction rating from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Optional.
`sendReviewRequest`	No	Automatically send a review request to the client after completion. Defaults to true. Consumes email + optional SMS credits.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job`	No	Updated job marked as Completed
`invoice`	No	Invoice details if auto-generated (null if not)
`reviewSent`	No	Whether a review request was sent to the client

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint false), not destructive (destructiveHint false), and idempotent. The description adds context about triggering review requests but does not disclose irreversibility or permanent state changes beyond what the annotations imply.

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 concise, with two sentences followed by clear bullet points for prerequisites and next steps. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, prerequisite, and recommended workflow. It does not elaborate on return values (but an output schema exists) or error handling, but is sufficient for typical usage.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a summary of optional behaviors (satisfaction rating and review request) but does not provide new semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 marks a job as completed, optionally records satisfaction, and triggers a review request. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like jobs.create and jobs.update by explicitly being the 'recommended end-of-job action'.

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 advises when to use it ('recommended end-of-job action') and provides a prerequisite ('Requires: job_id from jobs.list') and recommended next steps. However, it does not specify when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives like jobs.update.

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?