Wistia MCP Server

Update Channel Episode

update_channel_episode

Destructive

Update an existing Wistia channel episode's title, summary, publish status, media link, or podcast settings by ID.

Instructions

Updates an existing channel episode in a channel.

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
`title`	No	The episode's title. If not provided, the channel episode uses the title of the media used to create it.
`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.
`summary`	No	A short summary of the episode that is displayed when space is limited.
`publish_at`	No	The date and time when the episode is scheduled to be published in UTC timezone.
`description`	No	The episode's description or episode notes.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`episode_notes`	No	Additional notes for the episode.
`publish_status`	No	The status of whether or not the episode has been published to your channel.
`media_hashed_id`	No	The unique alphanumeric identifier for the media associated with this channel episode.
`podcast_settings`	No	Podcast specific settings for a channel episode. These settings only take effect if podcasting is enabled for the channel.
`channel_episode_hashed_id`	Yes	The hashed id of the Channel Episode
`live_stream_event_hashed_id`	No	The unique alphanumeric identifier for the live stream event associated with this channel episode.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: required token permissions, the need for confirm=true, and warnings that it may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. This is meaningful behavioral 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then details permissions and requirements in a structured way. It includes some repetitive phrasing (e.g., 'Requires api token' and code block) but overall it's efficient and each sentence serves a purpose. Minor verbosity but not distracting.

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?

Given the complexity (14 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers required permissions, mutation confirmation, and side effects, which are critical for safe invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly state what happens when required parameters are missing or how updates are applied (e.g., partial update semantics), leaving some gaps for a destructive operation.

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 fully documents all 14 parameters including nested payload fields. The description mentions confirm=true but adds no other parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb (updates) and resource (channel episode), which distinguishes it from create_channel_episode and delete_channel_episode. It doesn't explicitly mention siblings, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous in context.

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?

The description mentions the required permission scope and that confirm=true is needed, which gives some prerequisites for use. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_channel_episode or create_channel_episode, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server