MCP Make.com Server

run_scenario

Execute an active, on-demand scenario immediately by ID, passing custom input data and optionally waiting up to 40 seconds for the result.

Instructions

Run a scenario immediately. Scenario must be active and set to on-demand scheduling.

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": "run_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Input data for scenario inputs
`responsive`	No	Wait for result (max 40s)
`scenarioId`	Yes	Scenario ID to run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the on-demand/active scheduling precondition, which is a real constraint not in the schema, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the run blocks, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the precondition follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a trigger/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested 'data' object, the description leaves key gaps: what the run returns, whether it is synchronous, and what happens if the scenario is not on-demand. Only the scheduling precondition is covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so scenarioId, data, and responsive are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Run) and resource (scenario), and 'immediately' distinguishes it from the get/list/create/update/activate siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer over it.

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?

Provides a precondition for use: the scenario must be active and set to on-demand scheduling. That implies 'when to use' but gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. why not activate_scenario first).

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