Retrieve a specific team by its ServiceTitan ID to access full team details in a single record, avoiding pagination.
Retrieve a team by its ServiceTitan ID. Returns the single upstream record without pagination; use scheduling_teams_list to search when the ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Team ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it returns the 'single upstream record' and does not paginate. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The core retrieval behavior is stated first, and the pagination/alternative-search guidance is compactly added. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the exact key, the non-paginated single-record behavior, and the fallback tool when the ID is unavailable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the required 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that the ID is the ServiceTitan ID and that the result is a single upstream record, which helps the agent understand the parameter's provenance and expected result shape.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a team'), and the lookup key ('ServiceTitan ID'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scheduling_teams_list, which prevents confusion with the closest sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use scheduling_teams_list when the ID is unknown, giving a clear an alternative and the condition that selects it. This is direct, actionable guidance for an agent deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.