Skip to main content
Glama

get_scenario_status

Check the execution status of a Make.com automation scenario using its execution ID to monitor workflow progress and results.

Instructions

获取Make.com scenario的执行状态

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
execution_idYesscenario执行ID

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the 'get_scenario_status' tool logic. Currently returns a placeholder text response with the execution ID and instructions to check Make.com dashboard, as full API integration is pending.
    private async getScenarioStatus(args: any) {
      // 这里可以调用Make.com API来获取执行状态
      // 需要配置Make.com API token
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `📊 Scenario状态查询\n` +
                  `执行ID: ${args.execution_id}\n` +
                  `状态: 此功能需要配置Make.com API访问权限\n` +
                  `提示: 请访问Make.com dashboard查看详细执行状态`
          }
        ]
      };
  • The input schema for the 'get_scenario_status' tool, defining an object with a required 'execution_id' string property.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        execution_id: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'scenario执行ID'
        }
      },
      required: ['execution_id']
    }
  • src/server.ts:62-75 (registration)
    The tool registration object in the server's tools list, specifying name, description, and input schema for 'get_scenario_status'.
    {
      name: 'get_scenario_status',
      description: '获取Make.com scenario的执行状态',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          execution_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'scenario执行ID'
          }
        },
        required: ['execution_id']
      }
    },
  • src/server.ts:97-98 (registration)
    The switch case in the request handler that dispatches calls to the 'get_scenario_status' tool by invoking the getScenarioStatus method.
    case 'get_scenario_status':
      return await this.getScenarioStatus(args);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the status output entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status return values might be, error conditions, or operational context, which is inadequate for a tool that likely returns varied status information.

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%, with the parameter 'execution_id' documented as 'scenario执行ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and resource 'Make.com scenario的执行状态' (execution status of Make.com scenario), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (test_webhook_connection, trigger_make_scenario), which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Joseph19820124/make-mcp-integration-playbook'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server