Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Captions

create_captions
Destructive

Add captions to a specified Wistia media item by supplying an SRT file or its contents for accessible video playback.

Instructions

Adds captions to a specified media by providing an SRT file or its contents directly.

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.
languageNo
caption_fileNoEither an attached SRT file or a string parameter with the contents of an SRT file.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
media_hashed_idYesThe hashed ID of the media for which captions are to be added.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv3.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs
      Added value: +{
+  "language": {
+    "description": "An optional parameter that denotes which language this file represents. Should conform to ISO-639–2. If left unspecified, the language code will be detected automatically.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / $ref
      Added value: +"#/$defs/language"
    • removedInput schema / properties / language / description
      Removed value: -"An optional parameter that denotes which language this file represents. Should conform to ISO-639–2. If left unspecified, the language code will be detected automatically."
    • removedInput schema / properties / language / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / language / $ref
      Added value: +"#/$defs/language"
    • removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / language / description
      Removed value: -"An optional parameter that denotes which language this file represents. Should conform to ISO-639–2. If left unspecified, the language code will be detected automatically."
    • removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / language / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true and non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them by spelling out the exact permission strings needed, the delegate-to-contact authorization path, the mandatory confirm=true gate, and side effects ('may share access, notify people or incur provider charges'). This is exactly the added behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in a single tight sentence, and the operational details follow as scannable blocks. The permissions section is long relative to the purpose statement and includes boilerplate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers what matters most for correct invocation: authorization, the confirm gate, and side-effect warnings. It omits the payload-vs-payload_file mutual exclusivity, but the schema supplies that constraint.

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 86%, so the schema already documents media_hashed_id, caption_file, language, payload, payload_file and confirm. The description restates the SRT-file-or-contents concept but adds no syntax, format or mutual-exclusion detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Adds captions to a specified media') plus the input modality (an SRT file or its contents), which naturally separates it from read-side siblings like get_captions/list_captions. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the neighboring mutation tools update_captions, edit_captions_text or purchase_captions, so the agent must infer which mutation to pick.

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 concrete call conditions: the required API-token permissions, the delegation scope alternative, and the hard precondition 'Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation.' That is clear operational context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over update_captions/edit_captions_text or when not to use it.

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