Admin Substitute

subcontractors.register

Register a new subcontractor in the vetted network. Captures business details, trade license, insurance, service areas, and rates. Starts in "pending" status until verified. Requires Growth+ plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`abn`	No	Australian Business Number. Optional but recommended.
`email`	No	Contact email. Optional.
`notes`	No	Internal notes about this subcontractor. Optional.
`phone`	Yes	Contact phone number. Required.
`trade`	Yes	Primary trade (e.g. "plumbing", "electrical"). Required.
`dayRate`	No	Standard day rate in AUD. Optional.
`hourlyRate`	No	Standard hourly rate in AUD. Optional.
`contactName`	Yes	Primary contact person name. Required.
`businessName`	Yes	Subcontractor business name. Required.
`licenseState`	No	State of license (e.g. "NSW", "VIC"). Optional.
`serviceAreas`	No	List of suburbs/regions they service. Optional.
`licenseExpiry`	No	License expiry date (ISO 8601). Optional.
`licenseNumber`	No	Trade license number. Optional.
`insuranceExpiry`	No	Insurance expiry date (ISO 8601). Optional.
`publicLiability`	No	Public liability coverage amount in AUD. Optional.
`insurancePolicyNo`	No	Insurance policy number. Optional.
`insuranceProvider`	No	Insurance company name. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No
`subcontractor`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying creation without destruction. The description adds that registration starts in 'pending' status and requires a specific plan, providing behavioral context 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?

Three concise sentences with no superfluous information. The action 'Register' is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: what, what data, status, requirement.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, status, and data captured. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to invoke this tool.

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 each parameter's purpose is already clear. The description summarizes the types of data captured (business details, trade license, etc.), matching the parameters without adding extra semantics.

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 'Register' and the resource 'subcontractor', specifies it's for the 'vetted network', and lists captured details. It distinguishes from siblings like subcontractors.list and subcontractors.verify by focusing on creation.

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 provides clear context: starts in 'pending' status and requires Growth+ plan. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling list implies alternatives for verification and listing.

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?