MCP Make.com Server

get_scenario_logs

Retrieve execution logs for a Make.com scenario by ID to troubleshoot failed runs or monitor automation activity. Use the limit parameter to control results.

Instructions

Get execution logs for 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": "get_scenario_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results
`scenarioId`	Yes	Scenario 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 provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether logs are returned in chronological order, whether they include timestamps, how large they can be, pagination behavior, or any read-only/safety characteristics. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with no waste. Front-loads the action and resource. However, it's very terse, which borders on under-specification rather than optimal 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and the description is only five words. It doesn't explain return format (e.g., plain text vs structured objects), ordering, size, or any limitations. Grossly incomplete for a tool that retrieves potentially large logs.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about scenarioId or limit. Baseline 3 applies because 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get execution logs for a scenario'. Distinguishes from get_scenario (which likely returns scenario metadata/definition) by specifying logs. Reasonably distinct from siblings, though not explicitly contrasted.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., scenario must have been run), rate limits, or whether logs are retained. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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