Wistia MCP Server

Update Folder

update_folder

Destructive

Updates a Wistia folder's name, description, public access, or anonymous upload/download settings; requires confirmation before applying changes.

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

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	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.
`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.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Oct 7, 2026

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."

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, and the description adds substantial context on top: exact permission scopes, delegated-token authorization semantics, that the 'update' permission cascades to creating/renaming/deleting subfolders, the confirm=true gate, and that the call may share access, notify people or incur provider charges. That is unusually rich side-effect disclosure for a mutation.

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?

The purpose and confirm requirement are front-loaded, but the auth section is a long multi-paragraph block covering three token variants whose detail largely duplicates what structured auth handling would supply. It is informative but not tight; several sentences could be condensed without losing routing value.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns an agent needs: authorization requirements, the confirm gate, and the blast radius of the 'update' permission. It does not explain the id parameter's hashed-ID nature or how payload/payload_file/body-flag alternatives interrelate, leaving those to the schema.

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 10 parameters (including the nested payload object, payload_file and confirm) is already documented inline, and the description adds no field-level syntax or format meaning. 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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb+resource (updates a folder) and even clarifies the legacy name 'project'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_subfolder, update_folder_sharing, or copy_folder, which are the nearest siblings, so sibling differentiation is left to name inference.

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 gives a strong precondition set (required token permissions, delegation scopes, confirm=true) but never states when to choose this tool over update_subfolder or update_folder_sharing, or when a mutation should be deferred. Usage is implied by the permission/confirm preamble rather than spelled out as routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server