MCP Make.com Server

create_data_store_record

Add a record to a Make.com data store by supplying its ID and record data, enabling scenarios to persist structured information.

Instructions

Create a record in a data store

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": {
      "dataStoreId": "<dataStoreId>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "create_data_store_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Record data
`dataStoreId`	Yes	Data Store ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call requires auth/permissions, what happens on duplicate data, whether 'data' must match the store's schema, or what the response returns — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than exemplary conciseness.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it says nothing about required permissions, the expected shape/validation of the nested 'data' object, or the return value. An agent could call it but cannot anticipate failure modes.

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%: dataStoreId and data are both documented in the schema, including the nested-object nature of 'data'. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb ('Create') plus resource ('record in a data store'), which distinguishes it from create_data_store and create_scenario. However, it offers no explicit contrast with the close sibling list_data_store_records or any hint about what a 'record' must contain, so differentiation is only partial.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other create_* siblings, no preconditions (e.g. the data store must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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