Wistia MCP Server

Bulk Copy Media

bulk_copy_media

Destructive

Copy multiple media items into a destination folder asynchronously and return a background job status, leaving originals unchanged.

Instructions

This method accepts a list of medias to copy to a destination folder. It processes requests asynchronously and will return a background_job_status object rather than the typical Media response object.

Each media will be duplicated and the copy will be placed in the specified destination folder. The original media files will not be affected.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

Read, update & delete anything

Tokens with the "Act with a team member's permissions" permission (all:delegate_to_contact_permissions scope) can also be used. Requests made with such a token are authorized using the permissions of the contact assigned to the token.

An expiring access token created with the all:delegate_to_contact_permissions scope and an authorization granting the update permission on the destination folder can also be used; only the media the token's authorizations name are copied. Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation. May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Named private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
`confirm`	No	Must be true for the specific user-requested write.
`payload`	No	Complete JSON request body instead of body flags. Supports current nested customization, caption and nullable values.
`folder_id`	No	The hashed ID of the destination folder where the copies will be placed.
`hashed_ids`	No	An array of the media hashed IDs to be copied.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/open-world/non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: asynchronous processing, a background_job_status return instead of a Media object, and that originals are untouched. Auth/token requirements and the 'may share access, notify people or incur provider charges' caveat further enrich the picture, though the caveat is generic boilerplate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core behavior is front-loaded in two clean sentences, but the multi-paragraph token-permission block is verbose and largely repeats the same delegated-token idea three times, diluting the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the background_job_status return object and the async nature, and it covers auth requirements. It does not explain the payload vs payload_file vs flattened-flag interaction for a 6-parameter nested schema, which is the remaining gap.

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% across all six parameters, so the schema already documents folder_id, hashed_ids, payload, payload_file, confirm and account. The description only reinforces the destination-folder concept and confirm=true, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema's baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('accepts a list of medias to copy to a destination folder') and the bulk scope is clear from 'list of medias' plus the name. It does not explicitly name copy_media as the single-item alternative, but the plural scope is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from that sibling.

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 supplies prerequisites (required token permissions, confirm=true, delegated-token behavior) but never says when to choose this over copy_media or create_bulk_actions, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and scope rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server