Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_get_company

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Dialpad company profile details—name, domain, country, account type, office count, and AI settings—to verify account configuration.

Instructions

Get the Dialpad company: name, domain, country, account type, office count and AI settings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that this is a single unscoped company record and names the returned fields, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is an adequate but thin addition.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields after the colon. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the enumerated field list in the description does real work in telling the agent what comes back. It is nearly complete for a trivial zero-parameter read, though 'AI settings' and 'office count' remain vague enough that an agent cannot anticipate the exact return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly signals that no filtering or selection input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (the Dialpad company), then enumerates the fields returned: name, domain, country, account type, office count and AI settings. The company-level resource is clearly distinct from the sibling getters for user, office, call and contact, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the zero-parameter, company-scoped nature makes it the obvious choice when account-level metadata is needed, but the description never says when to use it or names an alternative. No exclusions, prerequisites or routing guidance are given.

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