postman-mcp-server

update_pan_element

Update an element or folder in your Private API Network, modifying its name, description, summary, or parent folder assignment.

Instructions

Update element or folder in Private API Network

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": {
      "elementId": "<elementId>",
      "elementType": "<elementType>"
    },
    "name": "update_pan_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Updated name
`summary`	No	Updated summary
`elementId`	Yes	Element ID
`description`	No	Updated description
`elementType`	Yes	Element type
`parentFolderId`	No	New parent folder 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation action but does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. However, it is overly brief and could benefit from more context.

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 6 parameters with no annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or relationship to parentFolderId. It is incomplete for a tool of this 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 states the action 'Update' and the resource 'element or folder in Private API Network', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_pan_element and remove_pan_element. It could be more specific about the element types but the schema enum covers that.

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 (e.g., add, remove). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided.

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

Deploy Server