MCP Make.com Server

list_hooks

Retrieve all webhooks configured for a specific team. Use it to review or manage team automation triggers within Make.com.

Instructions

List all webhooks 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_hooks"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it only conveys that this is a read of team-scoped data. It says nothing about required permissions/admin scope, whether the result is paginated, how the 'limit' interacts with total results, or what the returned hook objects contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action, resource, and scope in the first few words. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 covers purpose and scope but leaves the return shape and pagination semantics unstated. Adequate to call the tool, but thin for a tool an agent must interpret results from.

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% ('Max results', 'Team ID'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only that hooks are scoped to a team, which marginally clarifies teamId but adds no syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks') scoped to a team, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. No sibling tool lists hooks, so there is no confusion to disambiguate, but the description does nothing explicitly to distinguish itself from the surrounding list_* tools.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what a caller needs in hand before invoking it. The only implicit guidance is that a team is required, which the schema already states.

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