Wistia MCP Server

Edit Captions Text

edit_captions_text

Destructive

Apply targeted find-and-replace edits to a media transcript in a chosen language, creating one atomic caption version while preserving timings of unchanged words.

Instructions

Applies targeted find-and-replace corrections to a media's transcript for the specified language, preserving the timings of unchanged words. The whole batch is applied atomically against a specific caption version, or nothing is.

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`edits`	No	The corrections to apply, all-or-nothing, in one new version.
`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.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`language_code`	Yes	The 3-character ISO 639-2 language code of the caption track to edit (e.g., `eng`, `fra`, `spa`). Some languages use extended IETF subtags (e.g., `zh-Hant`).
`media_hashed_id`	Yes	The hashed ID of the media whose transcript should be edited.
`expected_version`	No	The active caption version returned with the caption content used to prepare these edits. The edit applies only if that is still the active version; otherwise it returns 409 so you re-read and retry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds meaningful behaviour: all-or-nothing batch semantics, optimistic-concurrency against expected_version with a 409 retry signal, and required token permission scopes plus confirm=true. The generic trailing boilerplate ('May share access, notify people or incur provider charges') is low-signal but the version/atomicity disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place, but a lengthy markdown permission block and generic risk boilerplate ('May share access, notify people or incur provider charges') inflate the description with content that is largely boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: atomicity, version pinning with the 409 retry path, permission requirements, and confirm=true. Return-shape details are absent but no output schema exists, and the concurrency contract is the main missing-behaviour risk that is actually addressed.

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 every parameter including the nested edit objects, expected_version, and confirm. The description adds essentially no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('applies targeted find-and-replace corrections to a media's transcript for the specified language') plus a distinguishing constraint ('preserving the timings of unchanged words'). An agent can differentiate this from update_captions (full replacement) and find_caption_matches (search only) without reading the schema.

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 the use case (targeted corrections vs wholesale replacement) and states the atomic batch behaviour, but never explicitly names an alternative sibling tool or contrasts when to pick this over update_captions or find_caption_matches. The atomic/version guidance is usage-relevant but framed as mechanics rather than tool selection.

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

Deploy Server