MIT
Postman MCP Server
by shannonlal
Postman MCP 服务器
一个 MCP（模型上下文协议）服务器，支持使用 Newman 运行 Postman 集合。该服务器允许 LLM 执行 API 测试并通过标准化接口获取详细结果。
特征
使用 Newman 运行 Postman 集合
支持环境文件
支持全局变量
详细测试结果包括：
总体成功/失败状态
测试摘要（总计、通过、未通过）
详细故障信息
执行时间
Related MCP server: Postman MCP Server
安装
通过 Smithery 安装
要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 Postman Runner：
npx -y @smithery/cli install mcp-postman --client claude手动安装
# Clone the repository
git clone <repository-url>
cd mcp-postman
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build the project
pnpm build用法
配置
将服务器添加到您的 Claude 桌面配置文件~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json ：
{
"mcpServers": {
"postman-runner": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/mcp-postman/build/index.js"]
}
}
}可用工具
运行收集
运行 Postman 集合并返回测试结果。
参数：
collection（必需）：Postman collection 的路径或 URLenvironment（可选）：环境文件的路径或 URLglobals（可选）：全局文件的路径或 URLiterationCount（可选）：要运行的迭代次数
响应示例：
{
"success": true,
"summary": {
"total": 5,
"failed": 0,
"passed": 5
},
"failures": [],
"timings": {
"started": "2024-03-14T10:00:00.000Z",
"completed": "2024-03-14T10:00:01.000Z",
"duration": 1000
}
}Claude 中的示例用法
您可以通过要求 Claude 中的服务器运行 Postman 集合来使用它：
“在 /path/to/collection.json 运行 Postman 集合并告诉我所有测试是否通过”
克劳德将：
使用运行收集工具
分析测试结果
提供人性化的执行摘要
发展
项目结构
src/
├── index.ts # Entry point
├── server/
│ ├── server.ts # MCP Server implementation
│ └── types.ts # Type definitions
└── newman/
└── runner.ts # Newman runner implementation
test/
├── server.test.ts # Server tests
├── newman-runner.test.ts # Runner tests
└── fixtures/ # Test fixtures
└── sample-collection.json运行测试
# Run tests
pnpm test
# Run tests with coverage
pnpm test:coverage建筑
# Build the project
pnpm build
# Clean build artifacts
pnpm clean贡献
分叉存储库
创建你的功能分支（
git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature）提交您的更改（
git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature'）推送到分支（
git push origin feature/amazing-feature）打开拉取请求
执照
国际学习中心
Available Tools
1 toolrun-collectionC
Run a Postman Collection using Newman
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | Path or URL to the Postman collection | |
| environment | No | Optional path or URL to environment file | |
| globals | No | Optional path or URL to globals file | |
| iterationCount | No | Optional number of iterations to run |
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 of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It fails to mention critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, execution time, or what happens during the run (e.g., output format, error handling).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of running a Postman collection (which involves execution, potential side effects, and output), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not additive value.
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 ('Run') and the resource ('a Postman Collection using Newman'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score of 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without offering any usage instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
run-collection
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as running a Postman Collection using Newman, leaving no room for misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
The single tool name 'run-collection' follows a clear verb-noun pattern, using a hyphen for separation. Since there is only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count2/5
A single tool is too few for a server named 'Postman MCP Server', which suggests a broader scope related to Postman API testing. This minimal toolset feels thin and underdeveloped, limiting functionality to just running collections without supporting other common Postman operations.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Postman-related domain. It only covers running collections, missing obvious gaps such as creating, managing, or listing collections, environments, or variables, which are core to Postman workflows and would cause significant agent failures.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessUnresponsive
Related MCP Connectors
End-to-end API testing — generate and run tests from OpenAPI, curl, Postman, or real user traffic.
Give your AI agents trusted access to the full Postman platform.
Direct access to Cypress tests results and accessibility reports in your AI workflow.
AI-callable tools for API mocking, testing, monitoring, security, and automation.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables running Postman collections using Newman, allowing LLMs to execute API tests and get detailed results through a standardized interface.150 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables interaction with Postman workspaces, collections, requests, responses, and monitors through the Postman API. Allows users to manage API collections, create and update requests/responses, and execute monitors directly from chat.17 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAutomatically generates Postman collections from code directories by analyzing API endpoints and parameters, enabling easy testing, documentation, and sharing.143MIT