Admin Substitute

services.create

Add a new service to the company catalog. Include name, description, price range, and category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Service name (e.g. "Hot Water System Replacement", "Lawn Mowing — Large"). Required.
`unit`	No	Pricing unit (e.g. "per job", "per hour", "per sqm", "per unit"). Optional.
`category`	No	Service category. Defaults to "service".
`priceMax`	No	Maximum price in AUD (e.g. 350.00). Optional. Can equal priceMin for fixed-price services.
`priceMin`	No	Minimum price in AUD (e.g. 150.00). Optional.
`description`	No	Detailed service description for quoting context. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service`	No	Created service with id, name, description, priceMin, priceMax, unit, category, active

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedMay 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of adding a service is consistent but adds no additional behavioral traits such as audit logging, authorization requirements, or side effects beyond basic mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence of 13 words that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but it is not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 6 parameters, high schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks context on what occurs after creation (e.g., service becomes available in catalog) or error conditions. It is minimally adequate.

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 description's mention of 'name, description, price range, and category' adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey. 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 verb 'Add' and resource 'service to the company catalog', distinguishing it from siblings like services.list and services.update. The fields to include are listed briefly.

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 use for creation via the phrase 'Add a new service', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., services.update), nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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?