postiz-mcp

postiz_get_post_analytics

Get per-post engagement metrics including likes, comments, and shares from social media platforms, returning data as provided by the source.

Instructions

Get per-post engagement metrics (likes, comments, shares) via GET /api/analytics/post. Returns whatever the source platform exposes — different shape per provider.

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>"
    },
    "name": "postiz_get_post_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`postId`	Yes	Post id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return shape varies by provider, which is important for handling responses. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential nuance about variable output. Every sentence adds value without 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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output variability. It could be improved by noting errors or examples, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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% with 'postId' described as 'Post id.' The description does not add further context about the parameter beyond the endpoint path, so it adds minimal value over the schema. Baseline of 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 tool retrieves per-post engagement metrics (likes, comments, shares) and specifies the API endpoint. It differentiates from sibling tools like postiz_get_platform_analytics (which is platform-level) and postiz_list_posts (listing posts) by focusing on individual post analytics.

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 per-post analytics but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., postiz_get_platform_analytics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving decision-making to the agent without comparative context.

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