Housecall Pro MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Create job

create_job

Destructive

New job for a customer with line items, optionally scheduled and assigned to employees. Creates the job as the New job form does. With start, it is scheduled in the company's time zone and assigned to employee_ids; the customer gets a scheduled email only with notify_customer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "line_items": "<line_items>"
    },
    "name": "create_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	Scheduled end. Default: start plus duration_minutes.
`note`	No	Private job note.
`start`	No	Scheduled start, 2026-11-04T09:00 in the company's time zone. Default: unscheduled.
`address_id`	No	Service address of the customer (create_customer). Default: the billing address.
`line_items`	Yes	Lines, in order.
`customer_id`	Yes	customer_id from list_customers.
`employee_ids`	No	Employees to assign (list_employees). Default: none.
`notify_customer`	No	Email the customer that the job is scheduled. Default: false.
`duration_minutes`	No	Default: 60.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it mirrors the New job form, schedules in the company's time zone, auto-assigns to employee_ids when start is given, and sends a customer email only under notify_customer. The main omission is any warning about the externally visible side effect of emailing a customer or about duplicate-job risk implied by idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what gets created and followed by the conditional behaviors; no filler. The middle sentence ('Creates the job as the New job form does') is the weakest, adding little beyond the first, but overall it is tight.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral branches an agent needs: scheduling, assignment, and notification. It stops short of saying what is returned (e.g., the new job id) and of any permission or rate constraints, which would matter for a destructive create.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics: start triggers both scheduling (in company time zone) and assignment to employee_ids, and notify_customer gates the scheduled email. It leaves slightly ambiguous whether employee_ids alone (without start) assigns anyone, which keeps it below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('New job for a customer with line items, optionally scheduled and assigned to employees') and scopes the optional behaviors. It does not name or distinguish itself from the other create_* siblings (create_estimate, create_invoice), so an agent must still infer why to pick this creator over those.

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?

Usage is implied through conditionals: scheduling only happens when 'start' is supplied, and the customer email only happens with notify_customer. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus create_estimate or create_progress_invoice, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that the customer must already exist).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Housecall Pro MCP Server and API by Cotlet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.