MCP Make.com Server

list_connections

Retrieve all API credential connections for a specified Make.com team to manage, audit, or review integrations.

Instructions

List all connections (API credentials) for a team

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results
`teamId`	Yes	Team ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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, and it discloses nothing beyond the operation itself. Critically, for a tool that returns API credentials it never says whether secret values are returned in full or masked, nor does it mention pagination behavior implied by the limit parameter. Permission/auth requirements are also unstated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single tight sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and no wasted words. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what it lists and for whom. It falls short on return-value expectations and any indication of how credentials are exposed, which matters for a security-sensitive list.

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 (teamId, limit) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only that connections belong to a team, reinforcing teamId, but adds nothing about limit or result behavior.

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 (List) and resource (connections) and defines the resource inline as 'API credentials' and scopes it to a team. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings, which are all unrelated (scenarios, data stores, teams), so the lack of sibling differentiation is not a real gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and the team-scoping language, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other list tools nor any prerequisite note. For a simple list primitive the implied context is largely sufficient, so a mid score is appropriate.

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