Admin Substitute

workflows.schedule_job

Smart-schedule a job for a lead — auto-picks next business day, syncs to Google Calendar, generates a Calendly booking link, and sends SMS confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Notes to attach to the job. Optional.
`leadId`	Yes	Lead ID. Required.
`durationHours`	No	Job duration in hours. Default 2.
`preferredDate`	No	ISO date string for preferred date. Optional (defaults to next business day).
`preferredTime`	No	"morning", "afternoon", "evening" or HH:mm. Optional (defaults to 9am).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	No
`success`	No
`calendlyLink`	No
`scheduledDate`	No
`calendarSynced`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses multiple side effects beyond annotations: auto-picks next business day, syncs to Google Calendar, generates Calendly link, sends SMS. Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so description adds essential behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence effectively front-loads the main action and lists automated outcomes. Slightly long but no wasted words; could be split for readability.

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?

Description covers key behaviors and outputs. Output schema exists to document return values. Missing some edge cases (e.g., error handling when lead not found) but adequate for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions in the schema. The description mentions defaults (next business day, 9am) but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: smart-schedule a job for a lead with automatic next business day selection, Google Calendar sync, Calendly link generation, and SMS confirmation. Distinct from sibling workflow tools.

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?

Description indicates when to use (scheduling a job for a lead) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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?