ServiceTitan MCP

dispatch_project_statuses_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search project status definitions by ID, name, or created/modified ranges. Use returned status IDs to classify projects and discover related sub-statuses.

Instructions

Search one page of project-status definitions by IDs, name, or created and modified ranges. Use the returned status IDs to classify projects, and dispatch_project_sub_statuses_list to find their finer-grained sub-statuses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated status IDs (maximum 50)
`name`	No	Filter by project status name
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, Name, Order, ModifiedOn, CreatedOn
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`createdBefore`	No	Return items created before this UTC timestamp
`modifiedBefore`	No	Return items modified before this UTC timestamp
`createdOnOrAfter`	No	Return items created on or after this UTC timestamp
`modifiedOnOrAfter`	No	Return items modified on or after this UTC timestamp

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?

The annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: this is a paged search (one page), not a full export, and the returned IDs are meant to be used for classification. This helps set agent expectations without contradicting 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 first states the tool's scope and filters, the second gives the practical downstream usage and points to the sub-status sibling. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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 paged, read-only list endpoint with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the resource, filter scope, pagination awareness, and how the result IDs feed into classification and sub-status lookup. No critical missing context remains.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It summarizes the filter categories (IDs, name, created/modified ranges) but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action (Search one page), a clear resource (project-status definitions), and the available query dimensions (IDs, name, created/modified ranges). It also distinguishes itself from the finer-grained dispatch_project_sub_statuses_list, so an agent can tell which status list to use.

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 downstream guidance: use returned status IDs to classify projects, and use dispatch_project_sub_statuses_list for finer-grained sub-statuses. It does not explicitly state when to prefer dispatch_project_statuses_get over this list, but the context is clear enough for typical list-versus-get decisions.

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

Deploy Server