Qualtrics MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bulk_import_contacts

Import up to 100 contacts into a Qualtrics mailing list, returning per-contact success or failure details.

Instructions

Create multiple contacts through the documented single-contact endpoint, returning per-contact successes and failures (non-atomic)

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": {
      "directoryId": "<directoryId>",
      "mailingListId": "<mailingListId>",
      "contacts": "<contacts>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_import_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contacts`	Yes	Array of up to 100 contacts to create sequentially
`directoryId`	Yes	Required XM Directory ID (POOL_...), also known as the directory or pool ID
`mailingListId`	Yes	The mailing list ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotation only indicates non-destructive. Description adds key behavioral traits: non-atomic execution and per-contact success/failure reporting. This goes beyond the annotation, though it could include more on rate limits or error handling.

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 18-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behavioral nuance (non-atomic, per-contact results). No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description does not outline the response structure beyond 'per-contact successes and failures'. Missing guidance on error handling, failure modes, or prerequisites beyond the required parameters. For a bulk operation with partial failures, this is somewhat incomplete.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds contextual details like 'up to 100 contacts' and 'created sequentially', and clarifies directoryId as 'also known as the directory or pool ID', adding value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it creates multiple contacts, specifies it reuses a single-contact endpoint, and highlights the non-atomic nature with per-contact results. This distinguishes it from add_contact (single contact) and other sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_contact or other contact import methods. The description mentions implementation detail (using single-contact endpoint) but does not compare to siblings or advise on scenarios.

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

Deploy Server