postman-mcp-server

create_server_response

Creates a response for a Postman mock server, allowing configuration of status code, headers, body, delay, and activation. Only one response can be active at a time.

Instructions

Create a server response. Only one server response can be active at a time.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mockId": "<mockId>",
      "serverResponse": "<serverResponse>"
    },
    "name": "create_server_response"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mockId`	Yes	The mock server ID
`serverResponse`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. The description discloses the 'only one active' constraint but does not explain side effects like deactivating other active responses or what happens to existing inactive responses. The mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical constraint. Perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core purpose and a key constraint, but lacks details about the return value (e.g., created response object) and potential side effects (e.g., deactivation). For a mutation tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions for nested fields, though the top-level serverResponse object lacks a description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'server response', and adds a specific constraint ('Only one server response can be active at a time') that distinguishes it from other operations like update or delete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for creating server responses and mentions the active constraint, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like update_server_response when modifying an existing response.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server