Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_get_department

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a department by ID to view its call routing and hours settings.

Instructions

Get one department by ID, including its routing and hours settings.

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_department"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of beyond-annotation value by naming the returned fields (routing and hours settings), which helps since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or permissions.

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?

One short sentence with the identifying scope front-loaded and zero filler; every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is close to sufficient, and the mention of routing/hours partially compensates for the absent output schema. It stops short of covering retrieval failures or ID sourcing, which keeps it below a 5.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Department ID (numeric).' The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one department by ID'), and the word 'one' distinguishes it from the list_departments sibling without needing to name it. It also signals what the returned entity contains (routing and hours settings).

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 agent can infer this is the right call when it already has a department ID and needs the full record rather than a listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., dialpad_list_departments for lookup by name).

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