Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_list_offices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Dialpad offices with IDs, names, states and main numbers. Filter by active status or name, paginate results, and request full fields only when needed.

Instructions

List Dialpad offices (sites) with ID, name, state and main numbers.

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_list_offices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`full`	No	Return every field of each item instead of the main fields only. Larger output; use only when needed.
`cursor`	No	Cursor from next_cursor of the previous page, to get the next page.
`active_only`	No	Only active offices.
`name_search`	No	Text to match in the office name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's useful addition is that the default payload is a trimmed field set (ID, name, state, main numbers), which hints at what the `full` flag expands — real context beyond annotations. It says nothing about ordering, result caps, or how pagination behaves in practice.

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 that states the resource and the returned fields with no filler. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing needs trimming.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose and default return shape adequately; the absence of an output schema is partly offset by the enumerated fields. The remaining gap is pagination behavior — the `cursor` param exists but the description never tells the agent results may be paged or how to iterate.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (full, cursor, active_only, name_search) are already documented with clear descriptions, including the size trade-off for `full`. The description only implies the default-field behavior via "main numbers"; it adds no matching or filtering semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries this much weight.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List Dialpad offices (sites)") and even names the fields returned (ID, name, state, main numbers), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling dialpad_get_office (single office) or dialpad_list_users/departments, leaving the list-vs-get boundary to be inferred from names.

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 verb "List" plus the field set suggests bulk retrieval of offices, and the sibling get_office implies this is the enumerating counterpart. There is no explicit "use this when you need all offices" statement, no mention of when to prefer get_office, and no note about paging through results.

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