ServiceTitan MCP

people_performance_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a page of marketing performance metrics for a UTC period, segmented by campaign, ad group, or keyword, to compare acquisition performance at a selected grain.

Instructions

Retrieve one requested page of marketing performance metrics for a UTC period, segmented by campaign, ad group, or keyword. Use this to compare acquisition performance at one selected grain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`toUtc`	Yes	End of filtering period in UTC
`fromUtc`	Yes	Start of filtering period in UTC
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`performanceSegmentationType`	Yes	Performance segmentation type

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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it returns only 'one requested page' rather than all results, and that metrics are segmented by campaign, ad group, or keyword. This is useful, though it doesn't elaborate on pagination loop behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a one-sentence use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, and 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, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description does not need to explain return shape or parameter syntax. It covers pagination scope, UTC period filtering, and segmentation. A small gap is not pointing to a sibling for broader or aggregate campaign analytics, but overall context is sufficient.

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 already documents all six parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond mapping 'UTC period' to fromUtc/toUtc and segmentation to performanceSegmentationType; it doesn't clarify page/pageSize/includeTotal beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the resource ('marketing performance metrics'), and narrows scope to a UTC period and one segmentation grain. It clearly describes what is returned ('one requested page') and the intended use, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like intel_campaign_performance, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Directly provides a use case: 'Use this to compare acquisition performance at one selected grain.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It doesn't mention exclusions or when to use a sibling like intel_campaign_performance, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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

Deploy Server