Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wistia MCP Server

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Show Media Aggregated Stats

get_media_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve aggregated tracking statistics for a Wistia video embedded on your site, including playback and engagement data. Use it to analyze video performance with a read-only API token.

Instructions

Aggregated tracking statistics for a video embedded on your site.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

Read all folder and media 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>"
    },
    "name": "get_media_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
media_hashed_idYesThe hashed ID of the video.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 genuine value beyond that: the exact permission scopes required and the delegated-token behavior, which the agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of a 5 because return/aggregation behavior is undocumented.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the bulk of the text is verbose boilerplate about token permissions and delegation. It is arguable whether all of that earns its place versus a terse 'requires Read access' note.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what 'aggregated tracking statistics' actually returns (plays, engagement, heatmap?). It also fails to aid disambiguation among numerous stats siblings, leaving the agent under-informed for a stats call.

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 both parameters (account, media_hashed_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: 'Aggregated tracking statistics for a video embedded on your site.' An agent can grasp what it returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many stats siblings (get_media_stats_by_date, get_media_stats_stats_media, get_media_analytics), so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded set of stats siblings (by-date variant, stats_media variant, analytics tools). The agent is left to guess which stats tool to call.

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