ServiceTitan MCP

dispatch_jobs_get_attachment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific job attachment from ServiceTitan Forms v2 by its attachment ID. Use this when you have the ID and need the attachment data.

Instructions

Retrieve one job-attachment resource from Forms v2 by attachment ID. Use dispatch_jobs_list_attachments to browse attachment metadata for a known job when the attachment ID is unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Job attachment 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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 context about the Forms v2 source and single-resource scope, but it does not disclose any deeper behavioral details such as return format or content type. This is adequate but not rich beyond what annotations and schema supply.

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 first sentence states the action and scope, and the second sentence provides a useful sibling routing. 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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with a full input schema and output schema present, the description provides enough context: resource type, source system, lookup key, and an alternative for the unknown-ID case. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with the single required parameter 'id' already described as 'Job attachment ID'. The description repeats the 'attachment ID' concept but does not add meaningful extra parameter semantics beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource ('one job-attachment resource from Forms v2'), and states the lookup key ('by attachment ID'). It clearly distinguishes this get-by-ID tool from the sibling browse tool, dispatch_jobs_list_attachments.

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 routes the agent to the alternative when the attachment ID is unknown: 'Use dispatch_jobs_list_attachments to browse attachment metadata for a known job when the attachment ID is unknown.' This makes the when-to-use versus when-not-to-use decision explicit.

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

Deploy Server