Retrieve scenarios for a Make.com team or organization, with pagination and limits, to inspect or manage automation workflows.
List all scenarios for a team or organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| teamId | No | Team ID (required if no organizationId) | |
| organizationId | No | Organization ID (required if no teamId) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about this being a read-only operation, how pagination behaves, ordering, or what the result set contains. 'List all' even overstates the result, since limit and offset exist in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description should do more: it omits pagination semantics, default ordering, and the shape of the response. An agent can call it, but cannot predict its behavior or output without trial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains limit, offset, teamId, and organizationId, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'for a team or organization' mirrors the schema's either-or requirement but adds no syntax, default, or behavioral detail beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (scenarios) with a scope qualifier (for a team or organization), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_scenario or list_scenarios-style alternatives, leaving differentiation to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative tool such as get_scenario for single-record retrieval. The only implicit hint is the phrase 'for a team or organization', which loosely signals the teamId/organizationId choice but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.