MCP Make.com Server

get_data_store

Retrieve details of a specific data store by providing its ID. Use this to inspect configuration, metadata, or status within Make.com.

Instructions

Get details of 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>"
    },
    "name": "get_data_store"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID is invalid, or whether the operation has side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral guidance rather than being an unalloyed strength.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a low-complexity, single-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain the retrieval's behavioral context and how it differs from sibling listing tools.

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 single dataStoreId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a data store'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this single-store lookup from the sibling list_data_stores, nor does it clarify that the lookup is by ID, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as list_data_stores or list_data_store_records, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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