Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wistia MCP Server

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Show Background Job Status

get_job_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the progress of a Wistia background job to see whether processing is complete, still running, or failed.

Instructions

Retrieves the status of a background job.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

Read 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. Read-only account operation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "background_job_status_id": "<background_job_status_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
background_job_status_idYesThe hashed ID or numeric ID of the background job

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the required API token permission ('Read all data') and delegate token behavior, which is exactly the kind of auth-need disclosure that helps an agent. The final 'Read-only account operation' line is redundant but harmless.

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 in one sentence, then provides a clearly formatted permission requirement block. It is slightly verbose due to the markdown heading and a redundant final line, but overall well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 read operation with a fully described schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose and authentication. It does not explain what the returned status looks like or any polling behavior, but no output schema exists and the omission is minor.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax or format, leaving it at the baseline of 3.

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: 'Retrieves the status of a background job.' This is clear and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from similar status-retrieval siblings such as get_order_status or get_account.

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?

The description implies usage context (when you need the status of a background job) and provides explicit authentication prerequisites, but it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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