Postly MCP

Get Publishing Activity

postly_get_publishing_activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns publishing activity for a requested date or time range, with actual published delivery counts separated from queued and processing posts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Optional exact local date in YYYY-MM-DD format. The timezone argument determines the local day.
`skip`	No
`limit`	No
`timezone`	No	Optional IANA timezone for relative_range or date, for example Africa/Lagos or America/New_York. Defaults to the account timezone or UTC.
`workspace_id`	No	Optional workspace ID. Omit to search accessible workspaces.
`activity_from`	No	Optional inclusive ISO-8601 activity start boundary. Must be used with activity_until.
`activity_until`	No	Optional exclusive ISO-8601 activity end boundary. Must be used with activity_from.
`published_from`	No	Alias for activity_from when the user asks about published posts.
`relative_range`	No	Natural date window. Use "today" or "yesterday" when a user asks how many posts were published on a local day. Defaults to next_7_days when no date or range is provided.
`scheduled_from`	No	Optional inclusive ISO-8601 start boundary. Must be used with scheduled_until.
`organization_id`	No	Optional organization ID. Use this to limit the search before choosing a workspace.
`published_until`	No	Alias for activity_until when the user asks about published posts.
`scheduled_until`	No	Optional exclusive ISO-8601 end boundary. Must be used with scheduled_from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`posts`	No
`window`	No
`summary`	No
`total_count`	No
`returned_count`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about separating published counts from queued/processing posts, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default time range, or timezone handling, so it only partially adds value beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and adds a key detail about output composition. It is concise, with no unnecessary words, and is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's 13 optional parameters, a more detailed description could clarify the various filtering dimensions. However, the rich input schema (with detailed property descriptions) and the presence of an output schema largely compensate, and the description captures the core purpose adequately for an agent to formulate a request.

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 85% parameter description coverage, with detailed descriptions for options like relative_range and timezone. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it earns the baseline 3 for relying on the schema to document parameters.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('publishing activity'), further specifying that it separates published delivery counts from queued/processing posts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like postly_get_post_status or postly_list_posts, which focus on individual post states rather than aggregate activity counts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving activity summaries over a date/time range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on choosing between this and related tools such as postly_get_account_analytics or postly_list_scheduled_posts.

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

All Postly MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: posts, analytics, media, schema, validation, targets, and organizational metadata are clearly separated. Even similar getters (post, post_status, post_analytics, publishing_activity) have explicit scopes that prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent `postly_<verb>_<noun>` pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs like create, get, list, update, delete, upload, validate, and resolve are used uniformly, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but every tool serves a distinct purpose in the social media publishing lifecycle. The count is justified for a comprehensive MCP, though a few could potentially be consolidated without loss of clarity.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full post lifecycle (create, read, update, delete, list), scheduling, publishing activity, analytics for both accounts and posts, media upload, channel schema validation, and target resolution. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?