ServiceTitan MCP

scheduling_appointment_assignments_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find technician-to-appointment assignments by assignment ID, appointment ID, job ID, active state, or creation and modification dates. Returns assignment relationships, not appointment records.

Instructions

Find one page of technician-to-appointment assignments by assignment IDs, appointment IDs, job ID, active state, or creation and modification dates. Use dispatch_appointments_get or dispatch_appointments_list for the appointment records themselves; this tool returns the assignment relationships.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No	Comma-separated assignment IDs (maximum 50)
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, CreatedOn, ModifiedOn
`jobId`	No	Return assignments for a job ID
`active`	No	Filter by active status	True
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`createdBefore`	No	Return items created before this UTC timestamp
`appointmentIds`	No	Comma-separated appointment IDs (maximum 50)
`modifiedBefore`	No	Return items modified before this UTC timestamp
`createdOnOrAfter`	No	Return items created on or after this UTC timestamp
`modifiedOnOrAfter`	No	Return items modified on or after 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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'one page' behavior and the relationship-focus, which is useful but does not go deeper into pagination, default filters, or response characteristics. This is acceptable given the rich annotations, hence a middling score.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core operation and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is delivered in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the tool has 0 required parameters, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it filters by, and how it differs from the most relevant siblings. Pagination details are fully documented in the input schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 all 12 parameters in detail. The description's mention of filter fields (assignment IDs, appointment IDs, job ID, active state, dates) adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at baseline 3.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('technician-to-appointment assignments'), and the scope ('one page'), and it differentiates itself from appointment-record tools by clarifying it returns assignment relationships. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from siblings like dispatch_appointments_list.

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 to use dispatch_appointments_get or dispatch_appointments_list for appointment records themselves, while this tool is for assignment relationships. This direct contrast with named alternatives leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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

Deploy Server