ServiceTitan MCP

dispatch_project_sub_statuses_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a project sub-status definition by ID, including its parent-status metadata. Use this to get detailed status information from ServiceTitan.

Instructions

Retrieve one project sub-status definition by ID, including its parent-status metadata. Use dispatch_project_sub_statuses_list to search by parent status, name, IDs, active state, or dates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Entity 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds some context about the return payload including parent-status metadata, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is stated first, and the routing guidance to the list sibling is concise and immediately actionable.

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 single-ID retrieval tool with a rich output schema and strong read-only annotations, the description is fully adequate. It states what the tool returns, points to the appropriate alternative for search scenarios, and leaves no important gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, described as 'Entity ID'. The description adds little beyond confirming retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline but does not substantially enrich parameter understanding.

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') and identifies the exact resource ('one project sub-status definition by ID'), and it distinguishes itself from the list sibling by stating it retrieves a single entity including parent-status metadata. This clearly differentiates the tool from related dispatch status tools.

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 directs the agent to dispatch_project_sub_statuses_list when searching by parent status, name, IDs, active state, or dates. This provides clear when-to-use-this-tool versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance.

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

Deploy Server