ServiceTitan MCP

scheduling_teams_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List scheduling teams page by page using timestamp and active-status filters, such as includeInactive, to retrieve or audit team definitions without knowing individual IDs.

Instructions

List one requested page of scheduling teams using includeInactive and created or modified timestamp filters. Use scheduling_teams_get for one known team ID; use scheduling appointment assignments for technician-to-appointment assignments rather than team definitions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, CreatedOn, ModifiedOn
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`createdBefore`	No	Return teams created before this UTC timestamp
`modifiedBefore`	No	Return teams modified before this UTC timestamp
`includeInactive`	No	Whether to include inactive teams
`createdOnOrAfter`	No	Return teams created on or after this UTC timestamp
`modifiedOnOrAfter`	No	Return teams 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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying pagination ('one requested page') and the filtering dimensions. It does not mention default behavior of includeInactive, but the schema documents defaults for pageSize and sort, so the gap is minor.

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 first sentence states the action, resource, and core capabilities; the second sentence disambiguates sibling tools. Every clause 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?

This is a read-only list tool with nine fully documented parameters, no required parameters, an output schema, and strong safety annotations. The description completes the picture by routing the agent away from two closely related sibling tools. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 nine parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds only high-level mention of the filter categories without introducing new parameter meaning, which aligns with the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List one requested page of scheduling teams', and immediately names the available filters (includeInactive, created/modified timestamps). It also distinguishes itself from scheduling_teams_get and from scheduling appointment assignments, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 states when to use alternatives: scheduling_teams_get for one known team ID, and scheduling appointment assignments for technician-to-appointment assignments instead of team definitions. This gives an agent actionable routing guidance with no inference required.

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

Deploy Server