Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_get_callcenter_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve live status for a specific call center, including availability, operators on duty, calls waiting, and longest wait time.

Instructions

Get live status for one call center: availability, operators on duty, calls waiting and longest wait time.

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_get_callcenter_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Call center ID (numeric).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data is "live," and with no output schema present, enumerating the four returned metrics is real added value. It does not mention permissions, freshness/latency, or what happens when the center is closed or idle.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the returned fields. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose and return contents adequately, and the missing output schema is offset by the enumerated metrics. The only real omission is how to obtain a valid call center ID.

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 only one parameter and the schema fully documents it as "Call center ID (numeric)." The description reinforces the single-center scope but adds no format, sourcing, or discovery guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get live status for one call center" names a specific verb and resource, and the enumerated payload (availability, operators on duty, calls waiting, longest wait) makes clear it is a real-time snapshot rather than the static config returned by dialpad_get_callcenter. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, so it is not a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to dialpad_list_callcenters for obtaining the required ID. The scoping phrase "for one call center" implies a single-entity lookup, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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