Wistia MCP Server

Update Folder

update_folder

Destructive

Change a Wistia folder's name, description, or sharing settings, including public access and anonymous upload or download permissions.

Instructions

Updates a folder (previously called project)

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 and an authorization granting the update permission on this folder can also be used. The update permission also allows creating, renaming and deleting the folder's subfolders and using the folder as the destination when moving or bulk-copying media the token may update. Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation. May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Folder Hashed ID
`name`	No	The folder’s new name.
`public`	No	A flag indicating whether or not the folder is enabled for public access.
`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.
`description`	No	The folder’s new description.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`anonymousCanUpload`	No	Whether anonymous users can upload media to the folder.
`anonymousCanDownload`	No	Whether anonymous users can download media from the folder.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds valuable context: required token permissions, a mandatory confirm=true, and a warning that the call 'May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent anticipate side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the lengthy auth permission block and markdown code fences are verbose and only partly relevant to tool selection. A leaner summary of the auth requirement would improve signal-to-noise.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with a nested payload and no output schema, the description covers critical behavioral gaps: permissions, confirm, and side effects. It could say more about mutually exclusive body styles (payload vs. payload_file vs. flags), but the schema documents those.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only repeats the confirm requirement and adds no syntax or field-level semantics beyond what structured data provides.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Updates a folder') and notes the former name, so the action is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_subfolder or update_folder_sharing, and the rest of the description drifts into auth details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over update_subfolder, update_folder_sharing, or other folder-related siblings. The auth and confirm requirements are prerequisites, not selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server