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

postman-mcp-server

by delano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_schema_file_contents

Retrieve the contents of a schema file from a Postman API by specifying API, schema, and file path.

Instructions

Get contents of 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": "get_schema_file_contents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiIdYesAPI ID
filePathYesPath to the schema file
schemaIdYesSchema ID
versionIdNoVersion ID (required for API viewers)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no insight into behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. The agent receives almost no information beyond the basic action.

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 very short (4 words), which is concise, but it lacks explanatory structure. While it is front-loaded, the brevity sacrifices useful detail.

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 annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'contents' means (e.g., plain text, JSON), possible errors, and how the output is structured. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 already has a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints to the parameters, resulting in a baseline score.

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 contents') and the resource ('schema file'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_api_schema' or 'get_api_schema_files', which also deal with schema content.

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 such as 'get_api_schema' or 'get_api_schema_files'. The description lacks any context about the intended use case or prerequisites.

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