Postiz Media Manager

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: find orphan media, clean up orphan media, get media stats, list all media, and list protected media IDs. The descriptions clarify specific actions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'postiz_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., postiz_find_orphan_media, postiz_get_media_stats). This predictability aids agent understanding and tool selection.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for media management in Postiz. Each tool serves a distinct function, and the count is neither too sparse nor excessive for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover core media management workflows (discovery, cleanup, stats, listing, and protection), but minor gaps exist, such as direct media upload or deletion of specific non-orphaned media, which agents might work around.
Average 3.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. It states the tool lists media items and excludes deleted ones, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function and scope, making it easy to parse.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like response structure, error handling, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke this tool.
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%, so the input schema fully documents the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all media items from Postiz'), with a specific scope exclusion ('excluding already deleted media'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like postiz_get_media_stats or postiz_list_future_protected_media_ids, which might also involve listing media items.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like postiz_find_orphan_media or postiz_get_media_stats, nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned statistics. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the key metrics. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for a basic read operation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on the statistics' format (e.g., numeric counts, JSON structure) and behavioral context like performance or limitations, which could be important for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion about parameters.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get statistics') and resource ('media usage'), and it enumerates the three specific metrics returned (total media, protected media, orphan media counts). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'postiz_list_all_media' or 'postiz_find_orphan_media', which is why it doesn't earn a 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'postiz_list_all_media' for listing media or 'postiz_find_orphan_media' for finding orphan media, nor does it specify any context or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'candidates for deletion,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or affects system state. The description lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential deletion implications.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and implication. Every sentence earns its place by defining orphaned media and indicating the tool's role in deletion workflows, with no unnecessary information or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (identifying unused media) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result details. For a tool that interacts with media data and suggests deletion candidates, more context on permissions, side effects, or output structure would improve 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'limit' documented as 'Maximum number of orphan media to return.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior if 'limit' is omitted or how results are ordered. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 tool's purpose: 'Find orphaned media (media not used in any future posts).' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('orphaned media'), and defines what qualifies as orphaned media. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'postiz_cleanup_orphan_media' beyond implying that this tool only identifies candidates, while the sibling likely deletes them.
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 by stating these are 'candidates for deletion,' suggesting this tool should be used before deletion tools like 'postiz_cleanup_orphan_media.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'postiz_list_all_media' or 'postiz_get_media_stats,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation for listing IDs and includes a critical constraint ('These media should NOT be deleted'), which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and critical usage warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it highly efficient and 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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. However, it could be more comprehensive by briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., a list of IDs) or linking to sibling tools for related operations, which would enhance contextual understanding without overloading the description.
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 the optional 'statuses' parameter with its default values. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the specific action ('List all media IDs'), the resource ('protected media'), and the criteria ('used in future posts with status: draft, scheduled, or queued'). It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on protected media rather than orphaned media or general media lists, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to identify media that should not be deleted because they are protected for future posts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'postiz_list_all_media' for all media), which prevents a perfect score. The guidance is implied but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs deletion (destructive action) and offers a dry-run mode for safety. It doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what constitutes 'orphaned', but the core behavior is well-described.
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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context (dry-run). It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place.
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 complexity (destructive cleanup with safety features), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and key behavior (dry-run), but lacks details on what 'orphaned' means, deletion consequences, or output format, leaving minor gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('dryRun' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description mentions dry-run mode but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the specific action ('clean up') and resource ('orphaned media files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'postiz_find_orphan_media' (which likely identifies but doesn't delete) and 'postiz_list_all_media' (which lists without cleanup). The mention of deletion makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by mentioning dry-run mode for previewing deletions, which implies when to use it (for safe cleanup with optional simulation). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'postiz_find_orphan_media' for just identification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-postiz MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manbodyslam/mcp-postiz/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manbodyslam/mcp-postiz)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-postiz MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manbodyslam/mcp-postiz/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manbodyslam/mcp-postiz)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/manbodyslam/mcp-postiz'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server