Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_get_user

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Dialpad user by numeric ID, or pass 'me' with a user-level API key to get the key owner's profile.

Instructions

Get one Dialpad user by ID ('me' for the API key's own user, with a user-level 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "dialpad_get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	User ID (numeric) or 'me'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of non-annotation context — that 'me' only resolves correctly under a user-level API key — but says nothing about what happens with a company-level key or what the returned user object contains.

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 resource, cardinality, and the 'me' edge case all in place. No filler, no repetition of the tool name as a standalone statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, and there is no output schema to compensate for. The only non-obvious edge case for calling it correctly — the 'me' alias — is addressed, so nothing critical is missing.

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 'User ID (numeric) or me'. The description restates that and adds the key-level caveat, which is a small but real increment; baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Dialpad user') plus the lookup key (by ID), which implicitly separates it from the list_users sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: use it when you already have a user ID. The 'me' shorthand and the condition attached to it ('with a user-level key') are genuine usage hints, but there is no guidance on when to prefer dialpad_list_users or any other lookup path.

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