Admin Substitute

lifecycle.assess

Read-only

Assess which business lifecycle stage a trade business is in (formation → survival → capacity → funding → scaling) and get readiness score for the next stage. Returns current stage, signals met/unmet, transition triggers, recommendations, and blockers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hasABN`	Yes	Does the business have an ABN?
`totalJobs`	No	Total jobs completed
`hasLicence`	Yes	Does the business have a trade licence?
`avgWaitDays`	No	Average customer wait time (days)
`reviewCount`	No	Total reviews received
`totalQuotes`	No	Total quotes sent
`hasInsurance`	No	Has insurance been arranged?
`annualRevenue`	No	Annual revenue ($)
`employeeCount`	No	Number of employees (0 for solo)
`avgReviewScore`	No	Average review score (1-5)
`monthlyRevenue`	No	Average monthly revenue ($)
`ownerWeeklyHours`	No	Owner weekly working hours
`declinedLeadPercent`	No	Percentage of leads declined/lost

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'returns' is consistent. It adds value by detailing the output structure (current stage, signals, triggers, recommendations, blockers), which supplements the annotations without 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?

Two sentences cover purpose, stages, and outputs with no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 5 stages) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately maps inputs to outputs. It briefly mentions 'provide business metrics' and lists all outputs. Could slightly improve by hinting at required inputs (hasABN, hasLicence) but schema covers 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters fully. The description does not add semantic detail beyond listing the stage names. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('business lifecycle stage'), explicitly lists the five stages, and mentions the readiness score and specific outputs. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scaling.readiness_score or formation.checklist by its comprehensive lifecycle focus.

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 states what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it vs. sibling tools like scaling.readiness_score or formation.checklist. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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?