Admin Substitute

reviews.request

Send a review request to a client after a completed job. Sends via email and optionally SMS with links to configured review platforms (Google, Hipages, etc). Requires: job_id from a completed job. Tip: reviews.platforms lists configured review URLs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	Job ID. Required. The job must be in Completed status. The linked lead must have an email address.
`sendSms`	No	Also send the review request via SMS to the client phone. Defaults to false. Consumes 1 SMS credit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`smsSent`	No	Whether SMS was sent
`emailSent`	No	Whether email was sent
`reviewLinks`	No	Array of review platform URLs included in the message

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that it sends emails and optionally SMS, and that sendSms consumes 1 SMS credit. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) 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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Purpose in first sentence, key requirement in second, helpful tip in third. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, options, and cross-references a related tool. No gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Description enriches both parameters: jobId requires completed job and lead email; sendSms consumes 1 SMS credit. Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds critical usage context not in schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action (send review request), the resource (client after completed job), and the method (via email, optionally SMS). It distinguishes from siblings like reviews.platforms and comms.send_email/sms.

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?

Explicitly requires job_id from a completed job, and provides tip to use reviews.platforms for configured URLs. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but context is clear.

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?