ServiceTitan MCP

payroll_gross_pay_items_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of gross-pay line items filtered by employee, payroll IDs, or pay date range, so you can inspect individual pay components instead of payroll-period summaries.

Instructions

List one requested page of gross-pay line items, optionally scoped by employee, payroll IDs, or pay date range. Use this to inspect pay components rather than payroll-period summaries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`employeeId`	No	Employee ID
`payrollIds`	No	Comma-delimited payroll IDs
`employeeType`	No	Employee type
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`dateOnOrAfter`	No	Filter items on or after this UTC timestamp
`dateOnOrBefore`	No	Filter items on or before 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 meaningful behavioral context: it returns one requested page and supports optional scoping, which helps the agent understand this is not a full unconstrained export.

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, no filler, and the core action plus key scoping options are front-loaded. The contrast with payroll-period summaries earns its place and helps disambiguate the tool.

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, detailed return-value documentation is not needed. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and main scoping choices. Minor gaps include not stating what happens when no filters are provided or whether a page parameter is expected, but the schema and annotations mitigate this.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter meaning. The description summarizes parameter groups (employee, payroll IDs, pay date range) but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('gross-pay line items'), and explicitly frames it as inspecting pay components rather than payroll-period summaries. This clearly differentiates it from payroll summary tools and related sibling tools like payroll_payrolls_list or export_gross_pay_items.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool to inspect pay components rather than payroll-period summaries. It also names the key scoping dimensions (employee, payroll IDs, pay date range), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool beyond the summary contrast.

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

Deploy Server