Make MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Make MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to trigger and interact with Make automation workflows by exposing on-demand scenarios as callable tools. Allows AI systems to invoke Make scenarios with parameters and receive structured JSON responses.120 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search 200+ Make.com modules, validate and auto-heal blueprints, and deploy automation scenarios directly to Make.com via API.101 npm8MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceThis server enables AI assistants to discover, parameterize, and trigger Make.com automation workflows configured for on-demand execution. It allows users to execute scenarios and receive structured JSON results, bridging the gap between AI assistants and complex automation ecosystems.120 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables Claude Desktop to trigger and interact with Make.com automation scenarios through webhooks. Allows users to execute complex workflows and integrations with third-party services like Google Sheets, Notion, and Slack using natural language commands.3101 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceConnects Claude to Make.com to manage scenarios: list, run, activate/deactivate, and monitor executions.261MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with Automatisch workflow automation platform, allowing them to create, manage, and monitor workflows, connections, and executions through natural language commands.108 npm7MIT
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
The tool names are entirely opaque, consisting only of scenario IDs like 'run_scenario_11422' with no indication of their distinct purposes. From the descriptions, some tools appear to handle inventory operations while others deal with scenario inputs or testing, but the naming provides no disambiguation, making it impossible for an agent to reliably choose between them without guessing.
All tool names follow a perfectly consistent pattern: 'run_scenario_' followed by a numeric ID. While this pattern is uninformative, it is uniformly applied across all six tools, with no deviations in style or structure.
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable and not excessive. However, given the unclear domain inferred from the tool names and descriptions—which suggest a mix of inventory management, scenario testing, and input handling—it's borderline whether this number adequately covers the scope, as the tools seem fragmented rather than cohesive.
Inferred domain includes inventory management and scenario testing, but there are significant gaps. For inventory, only list and add operations are present, missing update and delete. For scenario inputs and testing, the tools are vague and incomplete, lacking clear CRUD or lifecycle coverage, which will likely cause agent failures in complex tasks.