ServiceTitan MCP

accounting_ap_payments_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List vendor AP payments page by page and filter by payment IDs or created/modified timestamps. Use it to track accounts-payable disbursements.

Instructions

List one requested page of vendor AP payments, filterable by payment IDs and created or modified timestamps. Use this for accounts-payable disbursements; use accounting_ap_credits_list for vendor credits and accounting_payments_list for customer receipts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-delimited AP payment 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"
+}

Addedv2.6.2Jul 21, 2026
Removedv2.6.2Jul 21, 2026
First observedv2.5.1Apr 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting pagination ('one requested page') and the available filter dimensions (payment IDs, timestamps). This is useful and consistent, though it does not detail default page size or response shape—but those are partially covered by the schema and output schema.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative tool routing is efficiently packed into the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, paginated list tool with an output schema and detailed annotations, this description is complete enough. It states the resource type, pagination model, filterable fields, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 56%, with five parameter descriptions present but four timestamp parameters undocumented. The description adds high-level meaning by saying the list is 'filterable by payment IDs and created or modified timestamps,' which partially compensates for the undocumented timestamp parameters. However, it does not explain the semantics of the four timestamp fields in detail or clarify sorting/pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List one requested page of vendor AP payments.' It also names the exact filtering dimensions (payment IDs, created/modified timestamps), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It even distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting accounting_ap_credits_list and accounting_payments_list, so an agent can discriminate purely from the description.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: use this for accounts-payable disbursements, and explicitly says to use accounting_ap_credits_list for vendor credits and accounting_payments_list for customer receipts. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement with named alternatives, which is exactly what an agent needs for routing.

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

Deploy Server