Wistia MCP Server

List Folder Sharings

list_folder_sharings

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the contacts and contact groups that a Wistia folder is shared with, so you can review folder sharing permissions.

Instructions

Lists the sharings of contacts and contact groups on a folder.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	The page number to retrieve. This cannot be combined with `cursor`, pagination.
`cursor`	No	If `cursor[enabled]` is set to 1 then cursor pagination is enabled and the first set of records are fetched up to the `per_page`. Cursor pagination will also be turned on if `cursor[before]` or `cursor[after]` are set. Records returned will have a `cursor` property set which can be used to fetch more records in the same `sort_by` ordering. The cursor value of the last record can be used to fetch records after the current result set and the cursor of the first record can be used to fetch records before the result set. NOTE: a cursor value is only valid if the `sort_by` value hasn't changed from the last fetch. For example, you cannot fetch using `sort_by` id and then pass that cursor value to a `sort_by` name.
`account`	No	Named private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
`sort_by`	No	Ordering. When using cursor pagination (see cursor param), only `id` is supported.	id
`per_page`	No	The number of medias per page. Use this for both offset pagination and cursor pagination.
`all_pages`	No	Read bounded page/per_page pages; each request consumes API quota. Not a snapshot or guaranteed complete backup.
`folder_id`	Yes	Folder Hashed ID
`max_items`	No	Maximum returned records with all_pages=true, default 1000. At most 100 requests; output includes continuation state.
`hashed_ids`	No	Filter sharings by their hashed IDs
`sort_direction`	No	Ordering Sort Direction (0 = desc, 1 = asc; default is 1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the required token permission and the delegation scope that changes whose permissions authorize the request. It does not disclose return shape or the pagination model, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact permission block that is relevant to calling the tool correctly. The permission boilerplate is somewhat verbose but each part earns its place; nothing is padding.

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?

With 10 parameters, a nested cursor object, and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' and the auth prerequisites but says nothing about what a sharing record contains or how pagination/continuation is returned. The schema carries the parameter burden, but for a list endpoint with no output schema a brief note on return contents would improve completeness.

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 every one of the 10 parameters, including the nested cursor object, enum values, and limits, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level 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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Lists the sharings of contacts and contact groups on a folder.' An agent can distinguish it from the singular get_folder_sharing and the mutating create/update/delete_folder_sharing siblings by the 'List' verb and the folder-scoped resource. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 only contextual guidance is an authorization requirement ('Requires api token with Read all data') and a delegation note. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_folder_sharing, list_folders, or the other sharing endpoints, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server