Wistia MCP Server

Translate Media

translate_media

Destructive

Translates a Wistia media transcript into a target language, using an optional source language, so agents can localize captions and content.

Instructions

Translates the transcript for a media.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Named private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
`confirm`	No	Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
`payload`	No	Complete JSON request body instead of body flags. Supports current nested customization, caption and nullable values.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`media_hashed_id`	Yes	The hashed ID of the media.
`source_language`	No
`target_language`	No	The language to translate the transcript to. Use the bibliographic ISO 639-2 form or a supported regional or script IETF tag.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv3.0.0Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs

Added value: +{
+  "source_language": {
+    "description": "The language of the source transcript. Use the bibliographic ISO 639-2 form or a supported regional or script IETF tag. If not provided, the media's default transcript language will be used.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

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."

addedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / source_language / $ref
```
Added value: +"#/$defs/source_language"
```

removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / source_language / description

Removed value: -"The language of the source transcript. Use the bibliographic ISO 639-2 form or a supported regional or script IETF tag. If not provided, the media's default transcript language will be used."

removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / source_language / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
addedInput schema / properties / source_language / $ref
```
Added value: +"#/$defs/source_language"
```

removedInput schema / properties / source_language / description

Removed value: -"The language of the source transcript. Use the bibliographic ISO 639-2 form or a supported regional or script IETF tag. If not provided, the media's default transcript language will be used."

removedInput schema / properties / source_language / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond them: confirm=true is required for the mutation, and the call may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. It does not say whether an existing translation is overwritten, which is the remaining gap.

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 one-line purpose is correctly front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and then the side-effect caveat. The fenced permission block is bulky for the amount of information it conveys, but nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested body, no output schema, and destructive/open-world annotations, the description covers auth, the confirm gate, and side effects well. It leaves unstated what happens to pre-existing transcript translations and what the response contains, but those are modest gaps given the schema's coverage.

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 86%, so the nested payload, source_language and target_language are already well documented, including ISO 639-2 vs IETF tag guidance. The description adds no parameter-level information at all, so 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 ('Translates the transcript for a media'), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as create_localization or the caption/language tools, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose line; there is no statement of when to choose this over create_localization or the caption update tools. The description does supply invocation conditions (token permission, confirm=true), which is useful context but not alternative-selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server