Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wistia MCP Server

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Show share link

get_share_link
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches the share link for a single media item, creating one on first request with visibility inherited from its parent folder.

Instructions

Fetches the share link for a single media. If the media does not have a share link yet, one is created on first request with a default visibility derived from the parent folder.

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_id": "<media_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_share_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the get-or-create side effect and that default visibility is inherited from the parent folder. It also spells out the required token permission and the delegated-token authorization path. Note the create-on-first-request behavior sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, though the description is candid about it rather than misleading.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the auth block, which is relevant for invocation. The permission section is somewhat long and the trailing 'Read-only account operation.' fragment reads like boilerplate, but nothing is egregiously wasted.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it returns conceptually, the create-if-missing behavior, and the exact permission scope required. It lacks any description of the returned link payload or its URL shape, but that is a minor gap given the safety annotations.

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 (media_id, account) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-type, or account-selection detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches the share link for a single media') and scopes it to one media, which is far clearer than a tautology. It does not contrast itself with the adjacent share-link siblings (resolve_share_link, update_share_link, delete_share_link), so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling operations that also touch share links. The only contextual cue is the conditional 'if the media does not have a share link yet', which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.

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