postman-mcp-server

delete_schema_file

Delete a specific schema file from a Postman API by providing its API ID, schema ID, and file path.

Instructions

Delete a schema file

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": {
      "apiId": "<apiId>",
      "schemaId": "<schemaId>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "delete_schema_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiId`	Yes	API ID
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the schema file
`schemaId`	Yes	Schema ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), required permissions, or irreversibility, which is critical for a deletion tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient. However, it lacks any structure or additional context that could improve its completeness without being verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and the simplicity of the action, the description could at minimum clarify the expected outcome (e.g., success/failure indicators) or reference related tools like get_schema_file_contents. It falls short of being contextually complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a schema file'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_update_schema_file'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete tools or update operations). There are no prerequisites or context about when deletion is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server