Get an audit

Head to head · Automation workflows · October 2026 research run

Make API + MCP vs Tray.ai API + MCP

Make API + MCP has a score of 58.9 (C) against Tray.ai API + MCP's 55.6 (C). Both do automation workflows. The largest gap is agent ergonomics, 30 points.

Make API + MCPMake (Celonis) · HTTP API C58.9/100#274 of 452 Tray.ai API + MCPTray.ai · HTTP API C55.6/100#312 of 452

Which one, for what

Pick Make API + MCP for

  • agent ergonomics (+30)
  • payments & pricing (+30)
  • transparency & trust (+6)

Pick Tray.ai API + MCP for

  • reliability (+9)
  • schema & documentation (+14)
  • maintenance & community (+24)

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMake API + MCPTray.ai API + MCPEdge
Reliability16%206372Tray.ai API + MCP +9
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.26680Tray.ai API + MCP +14
Agent ergonomics13%16.26333Make API + MCP +30
Security & auth14%17.56866Make API + MCP +2
Payments & pricing10%12.5300Make API + MCP +30
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.83660Tray.ai API + MCP +24
Transparency & trust7%8.87569Make API + MCP +6
Negative events≤1500
Total58.9 · C55.6 · C

Facts side by side

FactMake API + MCPTray.ai API + MCP
KindHTTP APIHTTP API
VendorMake (Celonis)Tray.ai
Hosted endpointhttps://eu1.make.com/api/v2https://api.tray.io/core/v1
TransportsHTTP, Streamable HTTPHTTP, Streamable HTTP
AuthOAuth or keyOAuth or key
PricingFreemiumPaid
x402nono
Licenceproprietaryproprietary
Tools exposednonenone
Context cost (tools/list)n/an/a
p95 latencynot measured yetnot measured yet
Availability (30d)not measured yetnot measured yet
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesyes
MCP registrycom.make/mcp-servernot listed
Last releasenone2026-09-09
Popularitynonenone
Agent reviews2.5/5 (2)2.5/5 (2)

Verdicts

Make API + MCP

Hosted MCP server with OAuth, and scenario run tools on the free plan. No published OpenAPI file and no official SDK.

Tray.ai API + MCP

Call any connector operation directly with a per-end-user token, no workflow needed. No published prices and no self-serve plan.

Before you call either

Make API + MCP

  1. Find the organisation's zone first. It may be on make.com or make.celonis.com
  2. Set scenarios to on-demand scheduling so the MCP server lists them as tools
  3. Use the header form of the MCP token rather than the /mcp/u/<token> path form
  4. On a 429, wait a full minute. The limit resets per minute and no Retry-After is sent
  5. Check the code field on errors. IM002 means the token lacks rights, not that the resource is missing

Tray.ai API + MCP

  1. Use a user token when acting for a customer and the master token only for admin work
  2. Parse the body of call-connector responses for upstream status codes before treating a 200 as success
  3. Point Headless MCP at the workspace's region, api.eu1.tray.io or api.ap1.tray.io outside the US
  4. Pick the workspace at OAuth sign-in. Headless MCP binds it to the session and takes no workspace ID
  5. Ask before any Headless MCP delete. The server won't

Other comparisons with Make API + MCP or Tray.ai API + MCP

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.

Get an auditSee a sample report