ServiceTitan MCP

dispatch_arrival_windows_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific arrival-window definition by ID, including its time span and applicable business units.

Instructions

Retrieve one arrival-window definition by ID, including its time span and applicable business units. Use dispatch_arrival_windows_list to browse by active state or creation time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Arrival window ID

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral/return context by stating the retrieved object includes the time span and applicable business units, which is not visible from the annotations.

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 primary capability and key identifier are stated first, and the sibling routing follows naturally. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given a single required parameter, full schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It also names the relevant sibling for browsing, making the tool's role in the family clear.

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 100%: the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Arrival window ID.' The description only reinforces that retrieval is 'by ID' and does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('one arrival-window definition by ID'), and adds the useful scope 'including its time span and applicable business units.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling dispatch_arrival_windows_list, which serves a different browsing purpose.

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 names dispatch_arrival_windows_list as the alternative and tells the agent when to use it: 'to browse by active state or creation time.' This gives clear routing guidance without requiring the agent to inspect sibling schemas.

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

Deploy Server