Wistia MCP Server

Show Media Embed Locations Timeseries

get_media_embed_locations_timeseries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve time-series analytics for a video by embed location. Returns timestamped buckets with metrics for top locations plus an aggregated 'All other' entry.

Instructions

Retrieve timeseries analytics for a video broken down by embed location. Returns an array of timestamped buckets, each containing metrics for the top embed locations (ranked by the chosen metric) plus an "All other" entry aggregating the remaining locations.

The date range between start_date and end_date must not exceed 2 years.

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.
`sort_by`	No	The metric used to rank and select the top embed locations.	plays
`end_date`	Yes	End date for the analytics period in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). Exclusive — the range ends before the beginning of this date.
`media_id`	Yes	The hashed ID of the video.
`per_page`	No	Number of top embed locations per time bucket (max 100). Remaining locations are aggregated into an "All other" entry.
`embed_url`	No	Filter results to a single embed URL. When provided, only analytics for the page matching this URL are returned. The protocol is optional (https is assumed).
`start_date`	Yes	Start date for the analytics period in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). Inclusive — the range starts at the beginning of this date.
`granularity`	Yes	The time granularity for the timeseries data.

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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine operational context: the 2-year date-range ceiling, the required 'Read detailed stats' permission, delegated-token semantics, and the 'All other' aggregation behavior. It stops short of stating rate limits or pagination behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, followed by the hard constraint and then the auth block. The permission/boilerplate section is somewhat verbose but each element is actionable; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the bucket structure and aggregation entry, and it covers auth and date constraints. For an 8-parameter analytics tool it is nearly complete, only missing explicit sibling routing and pagination/return-volume detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying sort_by to how locations are ranked and per_page to the 'All other' bucket — a relationship the schema documents only piecemeal per property.

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 (timeseries analytics for a video broken down by embed location) and even sketches the return shape (timestamped buckets, top locations, 'All other'). This clearly distinguishes it from the non-timeseries sibling get_media_embed_locations, though it never names 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?

Usage is implied by the scope (timeseries by embed location) and the description supplies real prerequisites — the 2-year max date range and the required token permission. However it names no alternatives (e.g. get_media_embed_locations for totals, get_media_analytics_timeseries for non-embed breakdowns) or when-not conditions.

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

Deploy Server