Identify failed scenario runs waiting in the dead-letter queue. Check errored executions before retrying them.
List incomplete/failed executions (DLQ) of a Make.com scenario — runs that errored and are waiting. Use this before retrying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries (default 50, max 200) | |
| scenario_id | Yes | The scenario ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes the tool as listing errored executions but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, auth needs, or return structure. Adequate for a simple read operation.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with verb and resource, immediately clear. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description provides sufficient context: what is listed, condition, and usage hint. Lacks mention of return fields but acceptable.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it lists incomplete/failed executions (DLQ) of a Make.com scenario, specifying these are errored runs waiting. Distinguishes from siblings like make_list_executions.
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?
States 'Use this before retrying' giving explicit usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but purpose is specific enough to differentiate from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.