ServiceTitan MCP

export_job_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve incremental job history changes for bulk sync, paging with continuation tokens until the feed is fully caught up.

Instructions

Read the incremental job history export feed for bulk synchronization. Start with a date or omit from to start at the beginning of the feed, continue immediately with continueFrom while hasMore is true, and when false retain it and wait before polling again. includeRecentChanges may return records sooner but can repeat them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No	Continuation token or date string for incremental export
`includeRecentChanges`	No	Include recent changes not yet committed

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses real behavioral nuances: records can repeat when includeRecentChanges is used, continueFrom must be retained between polls, and there is an implied polling cadence ('wait before polling again'). This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express, and nothing contradicts 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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose is front-loaded, the polling protocol is compressed into the second sentence, and the parameter caveat is the third. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential protocol for a paginated incremental feed. The only meaningful gap is the implicit continueFrom-to-`from` handoff; minor details like record ordering or token validity are absent but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: omitting `from` starts at the beginning of the feed, and includeRecentChanges trades faster availability for possible record repetition. It does not, however, clarify the relationship between the response's continueFrom and the `from` parameter.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('incremental job history export feed'), and its purpose ('for bulk synchronization'). Among the large set of export_* siblings, the 'incremental feed' qualifier clearly separates this from plain list/export tools like export_jobs or export_job_notes.

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 fully specifies the polling loop: start with a date or omit `from` to begin at the feed's start, continue with continueFrom while hasMore is true, and retain it and wait when false. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, and it never states that the returned continueFrom should be passed back as the `from` parameter — inferable but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server