ServiceTitan MCP Server

list_jobs

Retrieve jobs from ServiceTitan using filters by status, customer, or date range to manage and track work orders efficiently.

Instructions

List jobs. Filter by status, customer, or date range.

status examples: Scheduled, InProgress, Completed, Canceled Date format: YYYY-MM-DD

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`page_size`	No
`status`	No
`customer_id`	No
`created_on_or_after`	No
`completed_on_or_after`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filters but omits pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any constraints. The page and page_size parameters are not addressed.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus examples. No filler, front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover pagination or overall behavior like return structure (though output schema exists). An agent might miss important usage details.

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 0%, so the description must add value. It explains filtering by status, customer, and date range, with examples for status and date format. However, it does not mention page and page_size, leaving some parameters undocumented.

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?

The description clearly states 'List jobs' with optional filters by status, customer, or date range. However, among many sibling list tools, it does not explicitly distinguish itself beyond the resource name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other list tools). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

Deploy Server