Wistia MCP Server

Update Appearance Customizations

update_appearance_customizations

Destructive

Applies partial updates to a video's player appearance; only supplied fields change and null values revert settings to their defaults.

Instructions

Applies a partial update to a video's appearance customizations. Only the fields supplied are changed; sending a field as null deletes it (reverting to the default).

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Named private Wistia account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
`confirm`	No	Must be true for the specific user-requested write.
`payload`	No	Complete JSON request body instead of body flags. Supports current nested customization, caption and nullable values.
`branding`	No	If false, Wistia branding is hidden on the player.
`media_id`	Yes	The hashed ID of the video to be customized.
`playerColor`	No	Base color of the player as a hexadecimal RGB string (no leading '#').
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`contrastIcons`	No	If true, control icons use a higher-contrast treatment.
`roundedPlayer`	No	Corner radius of the player in pixels. 0 disables rounding.
`opaqueControls`	No	If true, player controls render on an opaque background.
`showCustomerLogo`	No	If true, your customer logo is shown on the player.
`playerColorGradient`	No	Optional gradient applied to the player color.
`customerLogoImageUrl`	No	URL of the customer logo image to display on the player.
`customerLogoPlacement`	No	Placement of the customer logo on the player (e.g. top-right).
`customerLogoTargetUrl`	No	URL the customer logo links to when clicked.
`customerLogoSizePercent`	No	Size of the customer logo as a percentage of the player.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the null-equals-delete/revert behavior, the required permission set, the all:delegate_to_contact_permissions token scope, the confirm=true gate, and possible side effects (sharing access, notifications, provider charges). This is rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core update semantics and null-deletion rule before the auth block, which is the right ordering. The permission section is somewhat verbose and could be tightened, but every block is relevant to correct invocation.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, confirmation, partial-update behavior and side effects well. It omits any error/failure behavior and does not clarify the payload-vs-flags precedence, but with 100% schema coverage these are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a semantic that the schema does not: that sending a payload field as null deletes it. That meaningfully informs how the payload fields behave on use, pushing it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Applies a partial update to a video's appearance customizations.' The resource name ('appearance customizations') inherently distinguishes it from the many sibling customization tools (playback, thumbnail, accessibility, sharing, etc.), so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Provides partial-update semantics (only supplied fields change; null deletes and reverts to default), which is real operational guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the parallel update_*_customizations siblings or when to prefer payload vs. body flags vs. payload_file; usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server