Dunefox Voice MCP Server

Which workspace is this key for?

whoami

Read-only

Verifies API key and organization ID, returns workspace name. Call it first when tools fail with 401 errors to diagnose authentication issues.

Instructions

Confirms the API key and org id are valid, and returns the workspace's name. Call this first if a tool starts failing with 401s.

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": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the auth-verification behavior and the failure mode it addresses (401s), which is meaningful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't explain the error behavior when the key is invalid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the trigger. No filler.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is nearly complete. It could state what happens on invalid key (error vs. false response), but the core need is met.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to add parameter detail; its mention of org id is contextual rather than a parameter description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (confirms key validity, returns workspace name) with a clear resource and no ambiguity. The title reinforces this and the tool is trivially distinguishable from all sibling campaign/call/agent tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Call this first if a tool starts failing with 401s,' giving a concrete trigger condition. That is the exact when-to-use guidance an agent needs for a diagnostic tool.

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