ServiceTitan MCP

settings_tasks_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of employee tasks by filtering on status, assignment, customer, job, dates, priority, and related records.

Instructions

List one requested page of employee tasks using status, assignment, related-record, date, priority, and other filters. Use settings_tasks_get for one known task ID; statuses is preferred over deprecated isClosed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No	Comma-separated task IDs
`name`	No	Task name filter
`page`	No	Page number (starts at 1)
`sort`	No	Sort: Field (default), +Field (asc), or -Field (desc). Fields: Id, CreatedOn, DescriptionModifiedOn, CompletedBy, Priority
`jobId`	No	Job ID
`active`	No	Filter by active status	True
`isClosed`	No	Deprecated: filter by task closure state (use statuses when possible)
`pageSize`	No	Records per page (default 50)
`statuses`	No	Comma-separated task statuses
`jobNumber`	No	Job number
`projectId`	No	Project ID
`customerId`	No	Customer ID
`priorities`	No	Comma-separated task priorities
`taskNumber`	No	Task number
`assignedToId`	No	Assigned to employee ID
`includeTotal`	No	Include total count in response
`reportedById`	No	Reported by employee ID
`createdBefore`	No
`completeBefore`	No	Completion date upper bound (UTC)
`modifiedBefore`	No
`reportedBefore`	No	Reported date upper bound (UTC)
`businessUnitIds`	No	Comma-separated business unit IDs
`includeSubtasks`	No	Include subtasks in each task payload
`createdOnOrAfter`	No
`completeOnOrAfter`	No	Completion date lower bound (UTC)
`modifiedOnOrAfter`	No
`reportedOnOrAfter`	No	Reported date lower bound (UTC)
`employeeTaskTypeIds`	No	Comma-separated employee task type IDs
`employeeTaskSourceIds`	No	Comma-separated employee task source IDs
`involvedEmployeeIdList`	No	Comma-separated involved employee IDs
`employeeTaskResolutionIds`	No	Comma-separated employee task resolution IDs

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds pagination scope ('one requested page') and deprecation guidance, though it does not describe filtering combination semantics or rate-limit behavior; those are not required given the annotations.

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 key scope, alternative tool, and deprecation note are front-loaded and 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?

For a tool with 31 optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description gives enough orientation: what it lists, that it is page-scoped, how to retrieve a single task, and how to filter statuses. Detailed parameter semantics are left to the well-populated schema, which is appropriate.

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 high (87%) and most parameters already have descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description's statuses/isClosed note is helpful but to some extent duplicates the parameter description, and the broad filter categories ('related-record', 'date') are not mapped to specific parameters.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List one requested page of employee tasks') and names the exact filter families, so an agent knows what the endpoint returns. It also distinguishes itself from settings_tasks_get, which is the sibling for fetching a single known task.

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 routes users: 'Use settings_tasks_get for one known task ID', which is a clear when-to-use vs alternative. It also instructs agents to prefer statuses over the deprecated isClosed parameter, giving concrete selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server