postiz-mcp

postiz_list_posts

List social media posts within a specific date range, returning scheduled, queued, and published posts with their integration, content, state, and platform release URL.

Instructions

List posts in a date range via GET /api/posts. Returns scheduled, queued, and published posts with their integration, content, state, and any platform release URL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "postiz_list_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`startDate`	No	ISO-8601 start of window.
`endDate`	No	ISO-8601 end of window.
`display`	No	Convenience window when start/end omitted. Default 'week'.
`customer`	No	Optional customer id (multi-tenant).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the HTTP method (GET) and return content, but omits details like pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extraneous words. Every part adds value: the action, endpoint, post types, and key response attributes.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main response fields and post types. However, it lacks guidance on the interplay between startDate/endDate and the display parameter, and does not mention sorting or pagination.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond stating the date range focus; no additional semantics or usage nuances are provided for startDate, endDate, display, or customer.

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 ('List posts'), the resource ('via GET /api/posts'), and the scope ('in a date range'). It also enumerates the types of posts returned and key response fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_post or delete_post.

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 its use for retrieving posts within a date range. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, such as the sibling tool for missing content. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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