Wistia MCP Server

Create Brand

create_brand

Destructive

Save a reusable set of branding options—colors, fonts, logos, and layout—so you can apply consistent styling to Wistia media, folders, and channels.

Instructions

Creates a brand. A brand is a saved set of branding options (colors, fonts, logos, and layout) that can then be applied to media, folders, and channels. name is required; every other field is optional and left unset when omitted.

A new brand isn't applied to anything : it has no effect until you apply it to a resource with POST /brands/{brandId}/apply.

Accounts whose plan doesn't include multiple brands can only hold one brand.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

All data

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	The brand's display name. Renaming the account-level default brand is ignored; its name is managed by Wistia.
`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.
`page_logo`	No	The brand logo used for pages. `url` must be a Wistia delivery URL — see the note on uploading below. On accounts without custom branding the player logo is ignored, but the page logo is always applied.
`player_logo`	No	The brand logo used for the player. `url` must be a Wistia delivery URL — see the note on uploading below. Ignored on accounts whose plan doesn't include custom branding.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`border_radius`	No	The border radius in pixels for rounded corners.
`primary_color`	No	The primary brand color, used for primary buttons and the player playbar. Either a hex color string or a gradient represented as an array of [hexColor, percentage] tuples.
`contrast_icons`	No	Controls whether the player icon color is always white or uses an accessible contrast color when necessary.
`opaque_controls`	No	Controls the opacity of the video player control bar and big play button.
`body_font_family`	No	The brand font family for body text.
`button_font_family`	No	The brand font family for buttons.
`headline_font_family`	No	The brand font family for headlines.
`page_background_color`	No	The brand color used for page backgrounds. Either a hex color string or a gradient represented as an array of [hexColor, percentage] tuples.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description goes well beyond them: required api token permission ('All data'), delegate_to_contact scope behavior, the confirm=true requirement, side effects ('may share access, notify people or incur provider charges'), the plan-based brand limit, and the constraint that logo URLs must reference existing account images. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation.

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 purpose, then the apply-later behavior, then plan/logo caveats, then the permission block. The auth paragraph is somewhat boilerplate-heavy, but every sentence carries operational meaning; nothing is redundant padding.

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 15-parameter nested write tool with no output schema, the description covers creation scope, permission requirements, confirm gating, plan limits, and logo URL restrictions. It leaves the payload/payload_file/body-flag exclusivity to the schema and does not resolve the name-required ambiguity, so it is not fully complete but is adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters, including nested logo objects and color formats — baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that `name` is required and everything else is left unset when omitted, and that claim conflicts with the schema's empty top-level and payload `required` arrays, which weakens rather than strengthens parameter clarity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a brand') and then defines what a brand actually is (a saved set of branding options applicable to media, folders, channels). This clearly separates it from list_brands, get_brand, update_brand, delete_brand, and especially apply_brand, which the description explicitly says is a separate step.

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?

Gives real routing context: a new brand has no effect until applied via POST /brands/{brandId}/apply, and plan-tier accounts are limited to one brand. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-create or name competing alternatives, but the apply step and plan constraint are strong practical guidance.

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

Deploy Server