MCP Make.com Server

clone_scenario

Duplicate an existing Make.com scenario into a target team using the source scenario ID, new name, and organization ID.

Instructions

Clone/duplicate a scenario

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": {
      "scenarioId": "<scenarioId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>"
    },
    "name": "clone_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the clone
`teamId`	Yes	Target team ID
`scenarioId`	Yes	Source scenario ID
`organizationId`	Yes	Organization ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: it does not say whether connections, hooks, data stores, or blueprint configuration are copied, whether the clone is active or inactive, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible. 'Clone/duplicate a scenario' is the entire content.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

At five words it is certainly short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient writing; there is no useful content front-loaded because there is almost no content at all.

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?

For a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what gets duplicated, what the resulting new scenario's state is, and any prerequisites, leaving the agent unable to predict the tool's effect.

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 coverage is 100% with all four parameters (name, teamId, scenarioId, organizationId) individually described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a concrete verb (clone/duplicate) and resource (scenario), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name 'clone_scenario' and offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as create_scenario or update_scenario, which an agent could confuse with it.

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 guidance on when to clone versus creating a new scenario, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the source scenario to exist), and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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