Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Swap Media

swap_media
Destructive

Replace one Wistia media with another while preserving the original hashed ID and URLs. Queues a background job; requires confirm=true and matching media types.

Instructions

Swap one media with another media. This operation queues a background job to replace the original media with the replacement media while preserving the original media's hashed ID and URLs.

Requires api token with one of the following permissions

Read, update & delete anything

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.

An expiring access token created with the all:delegate_to_contact_permissions scope can also be used when its authorizations grant the update permission on both the media being replaced and the replacement media. A replacement media the token does not name is treated as not found. Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation. May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

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.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
media_hashed_idYesThe hashed ID of the media to be replaced.
replacement_media_idNoThe hashed ID of the media that will replace the original media. Must be the same media type as the original.

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation is asynchronous ('queues a background job'), the original's hashed ID and URLs are preserved, and it may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. It stops short of stating whether the replaced media is retained/recoverable or how to track the queued job.

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 and safety caveats. The permission section is somewhat verbose and repeats the delegation scope clause, which costs a little, but nothing essential is buried and no sentence is pure filler.

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 should ideally say what the queued job returns or that job progress is tracked via the sibling get_job_status, and it does not. Everything else an agent needs — permissions, confirm requirement, async nature, side effects — is covered for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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 every parameter including the confirm flag and the same-media-type constraint on replacement_media_id. The description repeats the confirm requirement and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Swap one media with another media') and immediately clarifies the mechanism: a queued background job that replaces the original while preserving its hashed ID and URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings such as copy_media, move_media, and update_media, which do not preserve the identity of the original.

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?

It gives solid preconditions (required permission set, delegation scope behavior, confirm=true) but never states when to choose this tool over the adjacent copy_media/update_media/translate_media siblings. Usage is implied by the auth requirements rather than framed as when-to-use/when-not-to-use 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