postman-mcp-server

update_monitor

Update an existing monitor's settings, including schedule, environment, collection, and SSL options.

Instructions

Update an existing 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>",
      "monitor": "<monitor>"
    },
    "name": "update_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`monitor`	Yes	Monitor details to update
`monitorId`	Yes	Monitor ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but fails to disclose whether it performs a partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects like triggering runs. The schema suggests partial updates via optional fields, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded. It avoids verbosity, but may be too minimal for an agent to fully understand the operation without relying on schema.

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 is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., updated monitor object), error conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., monitorId and monitor object with nested fields). No additional context such as validation rules or examples.

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 tool's action ('Update') and resource ('existing monitor'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_monitor, delete_monitor, and get_monitor. However, it does not specify the scope of updates, leaving some ambiguity.

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 create_monitor for new monitors or run_monitor for execution. The agent must infer from context alone.

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

Deploy Server