postiz-mcp

postiz_update_post_status

Transition a Postiz post status between DRAFT and QUEUE. Moving DRAFT to QUEUE re-enters the post into the schedule using its existing publish date. Requires write access.

Instructions

Transition a Postiz post between DRAFT and QUEUE via PATCH /api/posts/{id}/status. Moving DRAFT→QUEUE re-enters the schedule using the post's existing publishDate. Requires enableWrite.

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>",
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "postiz_update_post_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`postId`	Yes
`state`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the HTTP method (PATCH), effect of state change (re-enters schedule), and a requirement ('Requires enableWrite'). However, lacks details on idempotency, error cases, or what happens if the post is already in the target state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and method, then key behavioral detail. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main action and effect. Missing edge cases like preconditions or error handling, but largely complete for a straightforward status transition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only mentions 'postId' implicitly via '{id}' and 'state' via enum values. No added meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Transition', the resource 'Postiz post', and the specific states 'DRAFT and QUEUE'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like postiz_create_post or postiz_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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage for status transitions only, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The note about DRAFT→QUEUE re-entering schedule provides some context.

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