Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Bulk Tag Media

bulk_tag
Destructive

Add tags to multiple Wistia media files in one request. Processes asynchronously, returns a background job status, and appends tags without replacing existing ones.

Instructions

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

The tags will be added to the existing tags on each media file, not replaced.

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. Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation. May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Supports current nested customization, caption and nullable values.
tag_namesNoAn array of tag names to add to each media.
hashed_idsNoAn array of the media hashed IDs to be tagged.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for the specific user-requested write."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: asynchronous execution returning a background_job_status object instead of the usual Media object, additive-not-replacement tag semantics, the exact token permission required, delegated-permission behavior, and a required confirm=true flag. This is well beyond what destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core behavior and return-type change, then the permission block. Slightly padded by the long permission prose, but every section carries usable information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (background_job_status), requirement for confirm, auth scopes, and add-vs-replace behavior. It does not explain how the async job is polled or the idempotency implications of re-tagging, which leaves minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it makes clear that hashed_ids and tag_names are the operative inputs and explains the confirm=true gate as a mutation requirement rather than just a boolean flag.

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: it accepts a list of medias to tag in bulk. The bulk aspect distinguishes it from create_tags/delete_tag, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives real operational context (async processing, additive tag behavior) but never states when to pick this over create_tags or a single-media update path. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools