Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wistia MCP Server

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Show Localization

get_localization
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information for a Wistia localization using media and localization hashed IDs, with optional transcript inclusion.

Instructions

Obtain detailed information about a localization.

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": {
      "media_hashed_id": "<media_hashed_id>",
      "localization_hashed_id": "<localization_hashed_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_localization"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
media_hashed_idYesThe hashed ID of the localization's media.
include_transcriptNoWhether to include the transcript in the response.
localization_hashed_idYesThe hashed ID of the localization.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by spelling out the required token permission scopes ('Read all data' / delegated contact permissions), but says nothing about error behavior or response shape. Adds value beyond annotations without being rich.

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 purpose sentence is properly front-loaded and the auth requirements are relevant, but roughly two-thirds of the text is permission boilerplate restating scopes and the closing 'Read-only account operation' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true. Reasonably sized but not tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what it returns (details of one localization), how to authenticate, and the safety profile. It lacks any hint about response contents (e.g., transcript flag implications), which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the optional include_transcript flag and the account credential selector. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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: 'Obtain detailed information about a localization.' This clearly signals single-item retrieval and, combined with the required media/localization IDs, distinguishes it from list_localizations and create/delete_localization. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like list_localizations or get_media. An agent must infer that this is the single-localization read path purely from the name.

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