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

postman-mcp-server

by delano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_mock

Update an existing mock server's name, description, environment, access control, or version tag.

Instructions

Update an existing mock server

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>",
      "mock": "<mock>"
    },
    "name": "update_mock"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mockYes
mockIdYesThe mock server 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Update' but does not disclose whether this is a partial update or full replacement, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. Lacks behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous information. Efficient but could be improved by front-loading usage hints. Still, it is concise.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description provides no additional context on expected behavior, return values, or field update semantics. Incomplete given the complexity.

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 descriptions cover both top-level parameters, and nested object properties have brief descriptions. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 for moderate schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing mock server', which is a specific verb-noun combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mock, delete_mock, publish_mock, etc.

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. No context about prerequisites, such as needing the mock ID or whether the mock must exist. The description is just a statement of action.

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