Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wistia MCP Server

Wistia MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Captions

update_captions
Destructive

Replace captions on a Wistia video or audio file for a specific language. Provide an SRT file or its contents to update existing captions.

Instructions

This method is for replacing the captions on a video or audio media for the specified language.

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "media_hashed_id": "<media_hashed_id>",
      "language_code": "<language_code>"
    },
    "name": "update_captions"
  }
}

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.
caption_fileNoEither an attached SRT file or a string parameter with the contents of an SRT file.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
language_codeYesLanguage code conforming to ISO-639-2 for which the captions should be updated.
media_hashed_idYesUnique identifier for the media.

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: the required scope, the delegated-permission variant, the mandatory confirm=true, and the warning that the call may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. That is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond structured fields. It stops short of saying whether other languages' captions are preserved.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the permission notes are block-quoted and skimmable. It is somewhat verbose in the authorization section, but each element (permissions, delegation, confirm, side effects) carries distinct operational information.

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 destructive, 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the confirm gate, and side effects well. The remaining gap is the effect on existing caption data and localization variants, which an agent would want before overwriting captions.

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 seven parameters is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., SRT content handling or ISO-639-2 format) beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope ('replacing the captions on a video or audio media for the specified language'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as edit_captions_text or create_captions, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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 the precondition that confirm=true is required for the mutation and documents the permission scopes needed, which is useful routing context. But it never says when to use this tool instead of edit_captions_text, create_captions or delete_captions, so the when/when-not decision is left to inference.

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