Skip to main content
Glama
Dialpad MCP server

Dialpad MCP server

dialpad_update_contact

Updates a Dialpad contact by changing only the fields you supply; phone, email, and URL lists replace existing entries. Requires administrator approval before the change runs.

Instructions

Update a Dialpad contact. Only the fields given are changed; phones, emails and urls replace the whole list. Proposal: an administrator must approve it before it runs.

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_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesContact ID.
urlsNoWeb addresses. On update, replaces the whole list.
emailsNoEmail addresses; the first is the primary. On update, replaces the whole list.
phonesNoPhone numbers in E.164 format; the first is the primary. On update, replaces the whole list.
extensionNoExtension.
job_titleNoJob title.
last_nameNoLast name. The N8N sync appends the Autotask company short name, e.g. 'Smith ACME'.
first_nameNoFirst name.
company_nameNoCompany name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds two things they do not cover: that omitted fields are preserved while phones/emails/urls are wholesale replacements, and that a run is gated by administrator approval. The 'Proposal:' wording is awkwardly phrased but the approval-gate disclosure is genuinely useful context an agent would otherwise not have.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, with the core operation and the partial-update rule front-loaded. The trailing approval sentence is slightly malformed ('Proposal: an administrator must approve it') but still earns its place by carrying unique information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers partial-update semantics, list replacement, and an approval gate, and annotations cover the safety profile. It omits what happens on an unknown id or invalid E.164 value and gives no sense of the response, leaving modest gaps.

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%, including the 'On update, replaces the whole list' note on each array, so the description's list-replacement sentence largely restates structured data. With the schema already doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is correct; the description adds no format or validation detail beyond it.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb plus resource ('Update a Dialpad contact'), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/get contact siblings by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus dialpad_create_contact or dialpad_get_contact, and no preconditions such as needing an existing contact ID. The partial-update note tells the agent how the tool behaves once chosen, not when to choose it.

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