Blog post

Why We Built Mostman: Rethinking API Collaboration for Modern Teams

Jan 22, 2026

Why We Built Mostman: Rethinking API Collaboration for Modern Teams

Why We Built Mostman: Rethinking API Collaboration for Modern Teams

Published: January 2026
Category: Product, API Development, Collaboration, DevOps

Introduction: The Reality of Modern API Work

APIs sit at the heart of modern software. They connect services, teams, systems, and businesses. In theory, API collaboration should be simple: define requests, test them, share configurations, automate validation, and move on. In practice, it has become anything but simple.

Mostman was not born out of a product brainstorm or a market gap slide deck. It was born out of daily frustration, experienced repeatedly by developers working across countries, time zones, and infrastructures.

This is the story behind Mostman — why we built it, what problems we faced firsthand, and why we believe API collaboration needs to be rethought for modern teams.

Life Inside a Distributed Engineering Team

Our company operates with developers spread across multiple countries and cities. Different time zones, different working hours, different operating systems. Some engineers prefer macOS, many rely on Linux, and others work on Windows — often switching environments depending on the task.

APIs are the backbone of how these teams collaborate. Backend services talk to each other constantly. Frontend teams depend on stable contracts. Automation pipelines validate changes before deployment. Every role touches APIs in one way or another.

In such an environment, API tools are not optional utilities. They are critical infrastructure.

The Tools We Used — And the Problems We Couldn’t Ignore

Like most teams, we relied on existing, popular API collaboration tools. On paper, these tools promised everything:

  • Request building
  • Environment management
  • Team sharing
  • Automation
  • CI/CD integrations

But reality told a different story.

Overkill in Daily Work

Many tools tried to be everything at once: API client, monitoring platform, documentation hub, testing framework, enterprise dashboard. Over time, simple actions became buried under layers of UI and configuration.

Developers who just wanted to:

  • Send a request
  • Change an environment variable
  • Run a test

found themselves navigating complex interfaces designed primarily for enterprise management rather than daily engineering flow.

The Cost Problem

Pricing quickly became a major pain point.

Most modern API tools follow a per-user, per-month pricing model. At first glance, the numbers don’t look extreme. But in a distributed team, the math adds up fast:

  • Developers join temporarily
  • Contributors come and go
  • CI/CD systems need access
  • Automation accounts don’t map to “users”

Suddenly, teams are paying significant monthly costs just to maintain basic API workflows.

This felt wrong.

API collaboration is foundational work. It should not feel like a luxury service.

Linux Developers and the Memory Problem

One of the loudest complaints came from our Linux users.

Many existing API tools are built as heavy desktop applications with large memory footprints. On modern developer machines, this might not be noticeable — until you run multiple services, containers, IDEs, and monitoring tools at the same time.

For Linux users, especially those running lean systems or working on cloud-hosted environments, memory usage matters.

We repeatedly heard:

  • “This tool eats RAM for no reason.”
  • “Why does an API client need so much memory?”
  • “I just want to run requests, not a platform.”

This wasn’t nitpicking. It was a real productivity issue.

Terminals Were Treated as Second-Class Citizens

Another pattern became obvious: the terminal was an afterthought.

Despite how many developers live in terminals daily, most API tools treated CLI support as secondary:

  • Limited features
  • Separate products
  • Paid-only tiers
  • Inconsistent behavior compared to the UI

This created fractured workflows:

  • Design in UI
  • Re-export for CLI
  • Maintain two mental models

For teams relying heavily on automation and scripting, this was unacceptable.

CI/CD Was Never a First-Class Use Case

Modern development doesn’t stop at local testing. APIs are validated continuously in pipelines:

  • Before merging
  • Before deploying
  • During regression testing

Yet many tools were clearly designed for interactive use first, with automation bolted on later. This resulted in:

  • Awkward CLI commands
  • Limited configuration options
  • Hard-to-debug pipeline failures

We needed something that worked naturally in CI/CD, not something that tolerated it.

The Moment We Decided to Build Our Own Tool

At some point, the question became unavoidable:

Why are we paying so much money for tools that slow us down, consume excessive resources, and don’t match how we actually work?

The answer wasn’t to search for yet another alternative. It was to build something better — something designed from the ground up around real developer workflows.

That decision marked the beginning of Mostman.

The Principles Behind Mostman

Mostman was not built to compete on feature count. It was built around a small set of guiding principles.

1. Developer Workflow Comes First

Everything in Mostman starts with how developers actually work:

  • Keyboard-first
  • Terminal-friendly
  • Scriptable
  • Automatable

The UI exists to support the workflow, not to define it.

2. Lightweight by Design

Performance and resource usage matter.

Mostman is designed to:

  • Start fast
  • Use minimal memory
  • Run comfortably on Linux systems
  • Stay responsive under load

An API tool should feel like a utility, not a burden.

3. One Core Model, Multiple Interfaces

Mostman supports:

  • A Desktop UI
  • A Terminal UI (TUI)
  • A Command-Line Interface (CLI)

All three share the same underlying model. This means:

  • No duplicated configuration
  • No export/import hacks
  • No split workflows

You choose the interface that fits your task, not the other way around.

4. Built for Automation and CI/CD

Automation is not optional.

Mostman was designed to run:

  • In pipelines
  • On headless servers
  • In CI environments
  • As part of deployment validation

This makes it suitable not only for developers, but also for DevOps and platform teams.

5. Secure Collaboration Without the Friction

Sharing environments and configurations is unavoidable in real projects.

Mostman focuses on:

  • Explicit sharing
  • Secure handling of sensitive values
  • Avoiding unsafe workarounds

Security should enable collaboration, not block it.

A Different View on Pricing

Mostman was also built with a different philosophy on pricing.

Instead of forcing teams into rigid per-seat models, we aim for:

  • Fair pricing
  • Predictable costs
  • Accessibility for small teams

This ensures teams can grow without feeling punished for adding contributors or automation.

Transparency Over Marketing

Trust is earned, especially in developer tools.

We believe in:

  • Explaining security warnings honestly
  • Documenting limitations clearly
  • Communicating roadmap changes openly

If something isn’t perfect yet, we say so.

Looking Ahead

Mostman is still evolving. That’s intentional.

Our focus remains on:

  • Improving core workflows
  • Listening to developer feedback
  • Keeping the tool lean and focused

We are not trying to build the biggest platform. We are building the right tool for teams who value simplicity, control, and efficiency.

Conclusion: A Tool Built From Experience

Mostman exists because we needed it ourselves.

It is shaped by:

  • Distributed teams
  • Linux-first developers
  • Automation-heavy workflows
  • Real-world constraints

We built Mostman to remove friction, reduce cost, and give developers back control over their API workflows.

And this is only the beginning.

Back to Blog