Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wistia MCP Server

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Restore Deleted Media

restore_deleted_media
Destructive

Recover soft-deleted Wistia media by returning items to their original folder or a specified folder before the restore window expires.

Instructions

Restores one or more soft-deleted media. By default each media returns to the folder it was deleted from; pass folder_id to restore them into a specific folder instead. Only media still inside the restore window can be recovered. The restore runs asynchronously and the response includes a background job status.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

Upload and view media

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. Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation. May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "restore_deleted_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Supports current nested customization, caption and nullable values.
folder_idNoOptional hashed id of the folder to restore the media into. If omitted, each media returns to the folder it was deleted from.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
media_hashed_idsNoThe hashed ids of the soft-deleted media to restore. Up to 1000 at a time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for the specific user-requested write."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds substantial extra context: the default restore-to-original-folder behavior, the folder_id override, the restore-window limit, asynchronous execution with a background job in the response, and side effects (sharing access, notifying people, provider charges). This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Operation semantics are front-loaded and efficient, but the permissions boilerplate occupies a large block that is mostly duplicated across the toolset rather than earning its place here. Still readable and well organized.

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 6-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: async nature, job-status response, restore-window constraint, and auth requirements. It could say a bit more about what the job-status response enables (e.g. pairing with get_job_status), which keeps it from a 5.

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 the schema already documents folder_id, media_hashed_ids, payload, and payload_file. The description restates the folder_id default behavior rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Restores one or more soft-deleted media') and clarifies scope (soft-deleted only, batch of up to 1000). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling restore_media, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face, so it falls just short of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear preconditions: media must still be inside the restore window, and confirm=true is required for the mutation, plus the exact permission scopes needed. However it never names the sibling alternative (restore_media) or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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