ServiceTitan MCP

accounting_ap_credits_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a paginated list of vendor AP credits, filtered by credit IDs and created or modified timestamps. Use it to view credits on vendor accounts without confusing them with AP payments or customer receipts.

Instructions

List one requested page of vendor AP credits, filterable by credit IDs and created or modified timestamps. Use this for credits on vendor accounts; use accounting_ap_payments_list for AP disbursements and accounting_payments_list for customer receipts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-delimited AP credit IDs (max 50)
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, CreatedOn, ModifiedOn
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`createdBefore`	No
`modifiedBefore`	No
`createdOnOrAfter`	No
`modifiedOnOrAfter`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Sep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.5.1Apr 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool returns 'one requested page' rather than all records, and that it supports filtering by IDs and timestamps. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior and filters; the second sentence handles sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety traits, and the description supplies pagination and sibling routing. The remaining gaps are minor: exact timestamp filter semantics and default/combination behaviors are left to the schema or the agent to infer, but the tool is still actionable.

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?

The schema describes five of nine parameters in detail, and the description only groups filters generically as 'credit IDs and created or modified timestamps.' It adds some high-level meaning for the timestamp parameters, which lack schema descriptions, but does not clarify range semantics, exclusivity, or combination behavior. With 56% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vendor AP credits'), and immediately states pagination and filtering capabilities. It clearly differentiates itself from the two most similar siblings by naming accounting_ap_payments_list and accounting_payments_list and specifying what they handle instead.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for credits on vendor accounts.' It also names the alternatives for AP disbursements and customer receipts, giving the agent clear routing logic with no need to infer.

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

Deploy Server