Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
postman-mcp-server

postman-mcp-server

by delano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_monitor

Retrieve details of a specific Postman monitor by providing its monitor ID. Get information about monitor configuration, schedule, and status.

Instructions

Get details of a specific monitor

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": {
      "monitorId": "<monitorId>"
    },
    "name": "get_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitorIdYesMonitor ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations were provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, error handling, rate limits). For a retrieval tool, minimal behavioral info is acceptable, but the description is too terse.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and additional useful information. It could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should hint at what is returned. It does not, but for a simple 'get by ID' tool, the description is somewhat complete. However, it could mention that the output includes monitor configuration details.

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% coverage with a single parameter described as 'Monitor ID'. The description adds no further meaning, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific monitor'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_monitors' and 'create_monitor' by implying a single-item retrieval. However, it does not specify what 'details' means.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_monitor' or 'list_monitors'. The description lacks context for selecting this tool among 50+ siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools