PostMCP MCP Server

Official

by postmcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: user info, connected accounts, and post management (list, create, publish, update, delete). The actions are clearly separated, and even create_post vs publish_post_now are distinguished by whether the post is new or existing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_user_info, list_posts, create_post, publish_post_now, delete_post, update_post). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a social media post management server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or bloat, making the set easy to navigate.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides full CRUD for posts (create, list, update, delete), plus a specialized publish action, and includes user/account context. This covers the core workflow of managing social media posts from scheduling to publication.
Average 3.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions scheduling and immediate publishing (a mutation) but does not discuss irreversibility, authentication requirements, failure handling, or what happens after publishing. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.
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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Schedule or publish immediately.' Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Despite the schema covering parameter details, the tool has no annotations or output schema, leaving the description as the only source for behavioral context. It fails to mention expected return values, error conditions, or platform-specific constraints, which is inadequate for a 7-parameter mutation 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?
All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema; it echoes the notion of platforms and accounts but does not clarify any parameter beyond what's already provided.
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 uses specific verbs 'Schedule or publish immediately' and identifies the resource 'a post to one or more social media platforms or specific accounts,' clearly distinguishing its dual publishing modes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool publish_post_now, so it falls short of 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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use create_post over alternatives like publish_post_now or update_post. The description implies scheduling or immediate publishing but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, leaving usage context unclear.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'update' without explaining partial vs. full field replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, whether the status can be reset, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of nuance is a significant gap.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise given the tool's straightforward nature.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one short sentence. It never mentions what happens on success or failure, whether updates are partial or full, or how the status field fits into the workflow. This is insufficient for such a complex mutation tool, especially without structured metadata to fill the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level grouping ('schedule date/time' for scheduleDate and scheduleTime) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present. It doesn't compensate for or extend the schema, so a 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update the fields (content, platforms, schedule date/time) of an existing post.' The verb 'update' and resource 'post' are specific, and listing the fields distinguishes it from siblings like create_post and delete_post. It omits the status field, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention create_post for new posts, publish_post_now for immediate publishing, or any prerequisites. The intended context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative references are given.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-only action ('List') without mentioning any nuances like authentication requirements, empty list behavior, or whether 'active' affects the returned data.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the main output elements (channels and usernames). It could be more explicit about return format, but the level is sufficient for a list operation.
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 no parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 tool lists active, connected social media channels and their profile usernames. The verb 'List' and specific resource 'connected social media channels' make it distinct from sibling tools like get_user_info or list_posts.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context are given, so the agent must infer usage from the resource name.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and immediacy but does not mention potential side effects like whether the post loses its scheduled status, if the action is reversible, any permission requirements, or rate limits. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.
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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the action, target, and timing. No filler words; every word earns its place.
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?
The description is clear at a high level but omits details such as what happens to the original scheduled post, how 'platforms' are determined (e.g., connected accounts), and any prerequisites. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, these gaps leave the description only modestly complete.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description adds the useful constraint that the post must be an 'existing scheduled post', which is meaningful context beyond the schema's generic 'post to publish' description.
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 the specific verb 'broadcast' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'existing scheduled post' with the immediate action of publishing to platforms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post, update_post, and delete_post, which handle different operations.
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 clearly implies the use case: publishing a previously scheduled post right away. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list provides no other tool for this action, making the context clear.
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, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation and lists the data fields returned, but it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements beyond 'logged-in', or whether the data is real-time. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence of 13 words, front-loading the primary action and resource. Every word adds value and there is 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and enumerates the key returned fields. It does not explain the full response structure, but the listed inclusions offer sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.
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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'details of the logged-in user' with explicit mention of subscription plan, credit balance, and AI token count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_connected_accounts and list_posts.
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 this tool is for accessing current user information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool comparison or when/when-not guidance is given.
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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly says 'delete from the database,' which implies permanence, but it does not explicitly state irreversibility, permissions required, or potential side effects. This is a moderate gap for a destructive tool.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it operates on. It is complete for its complexity, given the sibling context and the clear 'database' reference.
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 schema fully documents the 'id' parameter as a Database ObjectId (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The description does not elaborate on the parameter or its format, so it stays at the baseline.
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 (delete) and resource (scheduled or failed post), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_post or publish_post_now. It states exactly what the tool does and the scope of posts it affects.
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 phrase 'scheduled or failed post' provides clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, effectively excluding published posts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
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, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and specifying the statuses adds context. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or potential limitations, which would be expected for a list operation.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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 parameterless list tool, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the resource and the included statuses, which is enough for an AI to decide when to use it. A minor gap is not mentioning the return format or any limits, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.
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, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already conveys (empty object). The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is nothing missing.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('social media posts'), and further specifies the scope ('scheduled, published, and failed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post, delete_post, and publish_post_now, which are mutations.
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 implies this tool is for viewing posts, contrasting with the mutating sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_user_info, though the context strongly suggests it for listing posts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/postmcp/postmcp-mcp-server'

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