Wistia MCP Server

Show Event

get_event

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a single event by its unique key, limited to events from the last two years per Wistia's data retention policy.

Instructions

Retrieve information for a single event. Please note that due to our data retention policy, only events from the last 2 years are available.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

Read detailed stats

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. Read-only account operation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No	Named private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
`event_key`	Yes	The unique key of the event.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds significant context: a two-year retention limit, required permissions ('Read detailed stats' or delegated token scope), and how delegation authorizes requests. This meaningfully reduces ambiguity beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by the retention note and required permissions in a logical order. The permissions block is somewhat lengthy but necessary, and the final 'Read-only account operation' slightly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 simple get-single-event tool, the description covers purpose, retention limits, and authorization requirements well. It does not describe return fields, but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is a minor 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%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about event_key format or account selection, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve information for a single event.' This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_events, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 provides important prerequisites (data retention window, required permissions) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_events or search. Usage is implied by 'single event' and the event_key requirement.

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

Deploy Server