MCP Make.com Server

delete_scenario

Permanently removes a Make.com scenario by ID, helping clean up unused or outdated automation workflows.

Instructions

Delete a scenario permanently

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": "delete_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenarioId`	Yes	Scenario ID to delete

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. 'Permanently' is a real disclosure of irreversibility, but nothing is said about cascading effects on related runs/logs, required permissions, or whether the operation can be recovered — significant gaps for a destructive, non-annotated 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 short sentence with no filler and the key constraint ('permanently') front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits the two things an agent most needs: the delete-vs-deactivate decision and the consequences of deletion. The word 'permanently' alone does not make it complete.

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% and the single parameter (scenarioId) is already documented in the schema as 'Scenario ID to delete'. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('delete a scenario') and adds the qualifier 'permanently', which meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling deactivate_scenario. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or contrast the two, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and there is no mention of the obvious alternative, deactivate_scenario, which is the safer reversible option in the sibling set. An agent must infer on its own when deletion is preferred over deactivation.

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