ServiceTitan MCP

dispatch_project_sub_statuses_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find project sub-status definitions by parent status, IDs, name, active state, or date ranges. Use these records to refine project status tracking.

Instructions

Search one page of project sub-status definitions by parent status, IDs, name, active state, or date ranges. Returned records refine a project's status; use dispatch_project_statuses_list for the parent status catalog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No	Comma-separated sub-status IDs (maximum 50)
`name`	No	Filter by project sub-status name
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, Name, Order, StatusId, ModifiedOn, CreatedOn
`active`	No	Filter by active status	True
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`statusId`	No	Filter by parent project status ID
`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

A4.2/5.0

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 valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states this is a one-page search and that returned records refine a project's status, giving domain meaning to the operation. No contradiction with 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 sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and key filter categories; the second sentence provides the critical differentiation from the sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderate-complexity list endpoint with 12 optional parameters, the combination of description, 100% schema coverage, output schema, and strong annotations is quite complete. The description covers pagination, filter scope, and the parent-status alternative. The only minor omission is not mentioning the single-sub-status lookup sibling, but that is not essential for correct invocation of this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description adds value by grouping the filter dimensions (parent status, IDs, name, active state, date ranges), but it does not provide any deeper semantics than the parameter descriptions already offer. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('project sub-status definitions'), and explicit filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling dispatch_project_statuses_list by clarifying that this returns records that refine a project's status while the sibling is the parent status catalog. An agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for the parent status catalog ('use dispatch_project_statuses_list'), which is the main differentiation point. It also communicates that this is a page-based search, implying pagination usage. It does not mention the single-record sibling dispatch_project_sub_statuses_get, so it stops short of fully covering all alternatives.

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

Deploy Server