一个 MCP（模型上下文协议）服务器，支持使用 Newman 运行 Postman 集合。该服务器允许 LLM 执行 API 测试并通过标准化接口获取详细结果。
使用 Newman 运行 Postman 集合
支持环境文件
支持全局变量
详细测试结果包括：
总体成功/失败状态
测试摘要（总计、通过、未通过）
详细故障信息
执行时间
Related MCP server: Postman MCP Generator
要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 Postman Runner：
npx -y @smithery/cli install mcp-postman --client claude# Clone the repository
git clone <repository-url>
cd mcp-postman
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build the project
pnpm build将服务器添加到您的 Claude 桌面配置文件~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json ：
{
"mcpServers": {
"postman-runner": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/mcp-postman/build/index.js"]
}
}
}运行 Postman 集合并返回测试结果。
参数：
collection （必需）：Postman collection 的路径或 URL
environment （可选）：环境文件的路径或 URL
globals （可选）：全局文件的路径或 URL
iterationCount （可选）：要运行的迭代次数
响应示例：
{
"success": true,
"summary": {
"total": 5,
"failed": 0,
"passed": 5
},
"failures": [],
"timings": {
"started": "2024-03-14T10:00:00.000Z",
"completed": "2024-03-14T10:00:01.000Z",
"duration": 1000
}
}您可以通过要求 Claude 中的服务器运行 Postman 集合来使用它：
“在 /path/to/collection.json 运行 Postman 集合并告诉我所有测试是否通过”
克劳德将：
使用运行收集工具
分析测试结果
提供人性化的执行摘要
src/
├── index.ts # Entry point
├── server/
│ ├── server.ts # MCP Server implementation
│ └── types.ts # Type definitions
└── newman/
└── runner.ts # Newman runner implementation
test/
├── server.test.ts # Server tests
├── newman-runner.test.ts # Runner tests
└── fixtures/ # Test fixtures
└── sample-collection.json# Run tests
pnpm test
# Run tests with coverage
pnpm test:coverage# Build the project
pnpm build
# Clean build artifacts
pnpm clean分叉存储库
创建你的功能分支（ git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature ）
提交您的更改（ git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature' ）
推送到分支（ git push origin feature/amazing-feature ）
打开拉取请求
国际学习中心
Run a Postman Collection using Newman
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | Path or URL to the Postman collection | |
| environment | No | Optional path or URL to environment file | |
| globals | No | Optional path or URL to globals file | |
| iterationCount | No | Optional number of iterations to run |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It fails to mention critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, execution time, or what happens during the run (e.g., output format, error handling).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of running a Postman collection (which involves execution, potential side effects, and output), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not additive value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and the resource ('a Postman Collection using Newman'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score of 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without offering any usage instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
run-collectionScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare against. The naming follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
A single tool is too few for a server named 'Postman MCP Server', which suggests broader Postman API functionality. This minimal set feels thin and under-scoped for the implied domain.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Postman server. It only allows running collections, missing essential operations like creating/editing collections, managing environments, viewing results, or interacting with other Postman features.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
MCP server for AI access to SmartBear tools, including BugSnag, Reflect, Swagger, PactFlow, QTM4J.
The Remote MCP server acts as a standardized bridge between LLM applications (like Claude, ChatGPT, and Cursor) and external services, enabling AI agents to access external tools and resources. Its primary capability is providing a centralized search tool to discover other MCP servers and their respective tools. Unlike local implementations, it runs remotely with OAuth authentication and permission controls for security.
