Modify an existing Make.com scenario's name, blueprint, scheduling, or folder by providing its scenario ID and the fields to change.
Update an existing scenario (name, blueprint, scheduling, folder)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New scenario name | |
| folderId | No | New folder ID | |
| blueprint | No | New blueprint JSON string | |
| scenarioId | Yes | Scenario ID to update | |
| scheduling | No | New scheduling config JSON |
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 burden for this mutation tool. It does not say whether the update is partial or full-replace, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur if the scenario is active. Only the word 'Update' signals mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the field list is compact. It is efficient, though the parenthetical field enumeration duplicates the schema and could be dropped or replaced with more useful behavioral detail.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know update semantics (partial vs. full), validation behavior, and side effects. None of this is present, leaving the definition incomplete for a write operation touching five fields.
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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each field in detail. The description restates the field set but adds nothing new, and it says 'folder' where the parameter is actually folderId, a minor naming looseness rather than added meaning.
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 (Update) and resource (scenario) and enumerates the affected fields (name, blueprint, scheduling, folder), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like create_scenario or activate_scenario beyond the verb, which the sibling names already imply.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling list contains activate_scenario, deactivate_scenario, and clone_scenario, and nothing tells the agent whether toggling state belongs here or in those tools. The agent must infer prerequisite conditions (e.g., scenario must exist) on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.