ServiceTitan MCP

inventory_purchase_orders_requests_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find purchase-order requests by status, date, technician, job, or project. Use filters like IDs, request number, and paging to locate pending, approved, or rejected requests.

Instructions

Search purchase-order requests with the exposed identifiers, status, date, technician, job, and paging filters. These are requests that may precede a purchase order; use inventory_purchase_orders_list for issued purchase orders.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated purchase order request IDs (maximum 50)
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, ModifiedOn, CreatedOn
`jobId`	No	Filter by job ID
`jobIds`	No	Comma-separated job IDs
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`projectId`	No	Filter by project ID
`dateBefore`	No	Filter by request date before this value
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`technicianId`	No	Filter by technician ID
`createdBefore`	No
`dateOnOrAfter`	No	Filter by request date on or after this value
`requestNumber`	No	Filter by purchase order request number
`requestStatus`	No	Filter by purchase order request status
`modifiedBefore`	No
`createdOnOrAfter`	No
`modifiedOnOrAfter`	No

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the lifecycle relationship between purchase-order requests and issued purchase orders, and by framing the tool as a filtered search operation. It does not contradict the annotations and provides enough additional framing beyond the structured metadata.

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 what the tool does and the key filter areas, and the second clarifies the domain concept and points to the alternative tool. The most important differentiating 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.

Completeness4/5

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

For a 17-parameter filtered list tool with a strong annotation set and an output schema, the description gives sufficient context to select the tool and understand its domain role. It identifies the resource, explains its relationship to purchase orders, and routes to the sibling for issued orders. It could be slightly more explicit about the full filter scope, but the schema fills that gap.

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 description coverage is 76%, so the schema handles most parameter semantics itself. The description adds only high-level categories (identifiers, status, date, technician, job, paging) rather than specific parameter details, which is acceptable but not additive beyond the schema. The few parameters without descriptions (e.g., createdBefore, modifiedBefore) are not individually clarified by the description.

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 ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('purchase-order requests'), then enumerates the filter dimensions: identifiers, status, date, technician, job, and paging. It also distinguishes this tool from inventory_purchase_orders_list by clarifying these are requests that may precede an issued purchase order. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from its closest sibling.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when dealing with purchase-order requests that may precede a purchase order. It also names the alternative (inventory_purchase_orders_list) for issued purchase orders, providing a clear routing decision between the two related tools. No inference is required.

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

Deploy Server