postiz-mcp

postiz_delete_integration

Disconnect a social channel and delete its scheduled posts. Requires integrationId and confirm=true. Cascading deletion of all queued content.

Instructions

Disconnect a connected social channel. Cascades — Postiz also deletes every scheduled post for that integration. Requires enableWrite + enableDelete + confirm=true. Returns ok:false / not_found on 404 (already disconnected).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "integrationId": "<integrationId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "postiz_delete_integration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`integrationId`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true. Cascades — scheduled posts removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cascading side effects, required permissions, and error behavior (ok:false / not_found). Missing explicit mention of irreversibility, but cascading implies destructiveness.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then critical requirements and return behavior. No wasted words; each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and partial param descriptions, the tool description covers main behavioral aspects: side effects, auth, error handling. Minor gaps, e.g., exact format of ok:false response.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only confirm has a description). The description adds context for both params, especially confirm's requirement and the return status. More detail on integrationId format would improve clarity.

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: 'Disconnect a connected social channel.' It also notes the cascading deletion of scheduled posts, distinguishing it from siblings like postiz_connect_integration (add) and postiz_list_integrations (read).

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 specifies prerequisites: 'Requires enableWrite + enableDelete + confirm=true.' It also describes a return condition for 404. While it does not explicitly state when to avoid use, the context is clear.

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