Dunefox Voice MCP Server

List calls

list_calls

Read-only

Retrieve a workspace's calls, newest first, including outcome, sentiment, and summary once analysed. Requires the 'calls' scope.

Instructions

This workspace's calls, newest first, with outcome/sentiment/summary once analysed. Needs the "calls" scope.

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": "list_calls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses ordering (newest first), that outcome/sentiment/summary appear only once a call is analysed, and the required auth scope — useful behavioral context not present in structured fields. It omits pagination behavior, which is relevant given limit/offset parameters.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and scope before the returned fields and auth requirement. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the returned fields and notes analysis-dependent availability, plus the required scope. However, for a paginated list tool the absence of any limit/offset semantics leaves a real gap an agent must guess at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both limit and offset, leaving the description responsible for explaining them. It says nothing about pagination, defaults, or the maximum of 200, so the two parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 names the resource (this workspace's calls), the ordering (newest first), and the returned analysis fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves without opening a schema. It is clearly a listing operation and distinct from get_call/get_campaign, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

The only usage guidance is the prerequisite "Needs the 'calls' scope", which is genuine and actionable. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_call or list_leads, so the when-to-use context is only implied by the resource name.

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