ServiceTitan MCP

accounting_payment_terms_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List payment-term definitions from ServiceTitan. Filter by IDs or created/modified timestamps, paginate results, and sort to locate specific invoice payment terms.

Instructions

List one requested page of invoice payment-term definitions, filterable by IDs and created or modified timestamps. Use accounting_payment_terms_get for one known term; use accounting_invoices_list for invoice transactions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-delimited payment term IDs (max 50)
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, Name, CreatedOn
`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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination ('one requested page') and filtering by IDs and timestamps, which goes beyond the raw 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and paging behavior are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is packed into a single clear sentence.

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 read-only list tool with nine optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main decisions: what is returned, how paging works, and which sibling to use instead. It does not mention sort or includeTotal, but those are documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the description only mentions 'IDs and created or modified timestamps' at a group level. It does not explain the semantics of the individual timestamp filters or the constraints like max 50 IDs. The description adds some orientation, but most parameter meaning still comes from the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('invoice payment-term definitions'), and the key scoping behavior ('one requested page'). It also heads off confusion with siblings by naming accounting_payment_terms_get and accounting_invoices_list as distinct alternatives.

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 explicit routing guidance: use accounting_payment_terms_get for a single known term and accounting_invoices_list for invoice transactions. This tells an agent exactly when to choose this tool versus its closest alternatives.

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

Deploy Server