ServiceTitan MCP

payroll_payroll_settings_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve payroll-settings records for employees and technicians with filters for active status, employee type, and creation or modification dates. Useful for auditing worker payroll configurations.

Instructions

List one requested page of payroll-setting records across employees and technicians, with active, employee-type, created, and modified filters. Use the employee or technician get tool when a worker ID is known.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`active`	No	Filter by active status	True
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`employeeType`	No	Employee type
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`createdBefore`	No
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds pagination and filter-scope context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like response shape, limits, or rate-limit implications. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and filters, and the second sentence provides a clear alternative. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only list tool with all-optional parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It could have also mentioned the relationship to export_payroll_settings, but the core invocation and scope are clearly covered.

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 description mentions the main filter families such as active, employee-type, created, and modified, which helps orient the agent. However, individual parameter meanings are mostly left to the schema, and schema coverage is only 56%, so description value is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('payroll-setting records'), the scope ('across employees and technicians'), and the pagination intent ('one requested page'). It also distinguishes itself from per-worker get tools by telling the agent to use the employee or technician get tool when a worker ID is known.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use the employee or technician get tool when a worker ID is known. It does not explicitly compare against export_payroll_settings or other list siblings, but the provided guidance is sufficient for the main selection decision.

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

Deploy Server