Make MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAKE_TEAM | Yes | Your Make team ID (found in the URL of the Team page) | |
| MAKE_ZONE | Yes | The zone your Make organization is hosted in (e.g., eu2.make.com) | |
| MAKE_API_KEY | Yes | Your Make API key with scenarios:read and scenarios:run scopes - generate from your Make profile |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| run_scenario_8632D | Scenario D - Subscenario |
| run_scenario_11704D | Scenario Inputs All Types |
| run_scenario_11707D | Scenario Inputs: Array of Collections |
| run_scenario_11652C | Tool: Add to Inventory (Add a new item to the inventory.) |
| run_scenario_11422C | Tool: List Inventory (Lists items in inventory.) |
| run_scenario_2361D | Dynamic Connections Testing |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
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.