ServiceTitan MCP

dispatch_jobs_notes_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve notes attached to a job by providing its ServiceTitan job ID, with pagination controls to browse large note sets.

Instructions

List one page of notes attached to a known job. Requires the job ID; this endpoint has pagination controls but no note-content filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Job ID
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response

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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds behavioral context by stating that it returns one page and exposes pagination controls but no note-content filters. This clarifies the tool's bounds beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core action, necessary precondition, and key limitation without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only paginated list with a full input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent the required identifier, the one-page behavior, and the lack of content filters, leaving nothing essential to infer.

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 all four parameters in full (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It usefully connects the required id to 'known job' and page/pageSize to 'pagination controls,' but adds no extra semantic value 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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('notes attached to a known job'), and a scoping constraint ('one page'). The job-ID requirement and 'no note-content filters' clearly differentiate it from sibling notes-list tools and the export_job_notes export tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to call it: with a known job ID, for a single page of notes, with only pagination controls and no content filtering. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server