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

postman-mcp-server

by delano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

run_monitor

Trigger a monitor execution to verify API performance and collect data. Use async mode for background processing, then fetch results with a separate call.

Instructions

Run a monitor. For async=true, response won't include stats, executions, and failures. Use GET /monitors/{id} to get this information for async runs.

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": "run_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, runs the monitor asynchronously from the created monitor run task
monitorIdYesMonitor ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behavioral trait: async=true omits stats/executions/failures from response. Could mention potential side effects or success criteria.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers essential points: purpose, async behavior, and reference for async results. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and description adds no new meaning beyond parameter names and types. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run a monitor' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_monitor (read) and update_monitor (modify) by implying execution, not retrieval or modification.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides guidance on when to use: explains async behavior and directs to get_monitor for async results. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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