Postman

Official

by postmanlabs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Get all specs

getAllSpecs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a list of all API specifications in a Postman workspace. Supports pagination with cursor and limit parameters.

Instructions

Gets all API specifications in a workspace.

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": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>"
    },
    "name": "getAllSpecs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	The maximum number of rows to return in the response.
`cursor`	No	The pointer to the first record of the set of paginated results. To view the next response, use the `nextCursor` value for this parameter.
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace's ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workspace scoping constraint but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or potential large result sets. Some value added, but limited beyond annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence: 'Gets all API specifications in a workspace.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool, the description is mostly sufficient: full schema coverage, clear safety annotations, and a concise purpose. However, it lacks explicit pagination behavior (despite cursor schema) and alternative tool guidance, so it falls short of perfect completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% – all three parameters (workspaceId, limit, cursor) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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?

Description clearly states 'Gets all API specifications in a workspace' – a specific verb ('gets'), resource ('all API specifications'), and scope ('in a workspace'). This distinguishes it from siblings like getSpec (singular) and getSpecFiles (files, not specs).

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. It doesn't mention using getSpec for a single spec or how pagination with limit/cursor works. With 35+ sibling tools, the lack of explicit usage context is a significant gap.

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