Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_get_number

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single phone number's type, status, and assignment details; a company admin API key is required.

Instructions

Get one phone number: type, status and assignment. Needs a company admin API key.

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": {
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "dialpad_get_number"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes	Phone number in E.164 format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a genuinely non-redundant constraint, the company admin API key requirement, which affects whether an agent can call it at all. It also previews the returned fields, though it says nothing about failure modes for an unknown or unassigned number.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the operation and returned fields before the auth requirement. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned fields, states the auth prerequisite, and no output schema exists to lean on. Only edge-case behavior (unknown number, unassigned number) is left unaddressed.

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 exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already specifying E.164 format. The description adds no format, normalization, or formatting hints 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get one phone number') and enumerates what the result covers ('type, status and assignment'), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly name dialpad_list_numbers as the contrasting bulk operation, so the differentiation is implied by 'one' rather than stated.

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?

'Needs a company admin API key' is a prerequisite rather than when-to-use guidance. The single-number framing implies this is the lookup for a known number versus a listing tool, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated, leaving usage to inference.

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