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

postman-mcp-server

by delano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_server_response

Retrieve a specific server response by providing the mock server ID and response ID to use it in your API tests.

Instructions

Get a specific server response

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>",
      "serverResponseId": "<serverResponseId>"
    },
    "name": "get_server_response"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mockIdYesThe mock server ID
serverResponseIdYesThe server response ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no additional behavioral context such as idempotency, side effects, permissions, or error handling. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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 tool has low complexity with two parameters and no output schema. The description is minimally adequate but could benefit from mentioning what the response contains or example usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the action (Get) and resource (server response), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_server_response or delete_server_response. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'server response' is in this context, which could be improved.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling getter tools, differentiation is missing, and no context about prerequisites or alternatives is given.

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