Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_delete_contact

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a Dialpad contact by ID after administrator approval; the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a Dialpad contact (the N8N sync does this when the Autotask contact is deactivated). Cannot be undone. Proposal: an administrator must approve it before it runs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "dialpad_delete_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Contact ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the irreversibility of the call is partly structured information. The description still adds real value by stating "Cannot be undone" outright and by surfacing an approval requirement that is not captured in any annotation, though the "Proposal:" wording leaves it unclear whether the approval gate is enforced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, and each sentence carries distinct information (action, trigger context, irreversibility, approval). The vague "Proposal:" prefix is the one piece of wording that costs clarity rather than adding it.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, and that approval may be required. It could say more about failure modes (e.g., unknown contact ID) or whether the delete is hard versus soft, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no meaning about the identifier's format, source, or behavior when an unknown ID is supplied, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a Dialpad contact"), which separates it cleanly from the create/get/update contact siblings. The parenthetical adds the business trigger behind the deletion, reinforcing scope without obscuring the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It describes the context in which the delete fires (N8N sync, Autotask contact deactivation) and mentions an administrator approval prerequisite, which implies when it should run. However, it gives no agent-facing guidance on alternatives such as deactivating or updating a contact instead, and the "Proposal:" hedging makes the approval rule read as tentative rather than a firm precondition.

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