MCP Make.com Server

create_scenario

Creates a new Make.com scenario from a blueprint defining workflow modules and connections, with manual or scheduled trigger options.

Instructions

Create a new scenario with a blueprint. The blueprint defines the workflow modules and their connections.

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "blueprint": "<blueprint>",
      "scheduling": "<scheduling>"
    },
    "name": "create_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Scenario name
`teamId`	Yes	Team ID where to create the scenario
`folderId`	No	Optional folder ID
`blueprint`	Yes	JSON string of the scenario blueprint with flow array
`scheduling`	Yes	Scheduling config JSON. Use '{"type":"on-demand"}' for manual trigger or '{"type":"indefinitely","interval":15}' for scheduled (interval in minutes)

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 burden. It says 'create' but discloses nothing about permissions required, what happens on blueprint validation failure, whether the scenario is created active or inactive, or any side effects. The second sentence only restates what a blueprint is.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence contributes little beyond restating the term 'blueprint'.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits required-field emphasis (teamId, blueprint, scheduling are required), says nothing about what the tool returns (e.g., the new scenario ID), and gives no guidance on the blueprint's expected shape beyond one vague sentence.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a small conceptual gloss on the blueprint ('defines the workflow modules and their connections') but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new scenario') and adds that a blueprint is supplied. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like clone_scenario or create_data_store, which are also creation tools in this set.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as clone_scenario (copy an existing scenario) or update_scenario (modify one). The agent must infer that this is the right tool for creating from scratch.

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