Wistia MCP Server

Update Media

update_media

Destructive

Update Wistia media details like name, description, tags, custom metadata, and still image. Set confirm=true to save changes.

Instructions

Updates the attributes on a media.

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 media can also be used. Requires confirm=true for the requested mutation. May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	The media’s new name.
`tags`	No	An array of tag names to apply to the media. This replaces any existing tags. To add tags without replacing existing tags, use bulk-tag-media.
`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	A new description for this media. Accepts plain text or markdown.
`payload_file`	No	Regular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
`custom_metadata`	No	Custom metadata field values to set, keyed by field key. Values take the same shapes as the Set Custom Metadata Field Value endpoint; a null value clears that field and omitted fields are untouched. Requires the custom metadata feature on the account.
`media_hashed_id`	Yes	The hashed ID of the media.
`new_still_media_id`	No	The Wistia hashed ID of an image that will replace the still that’s displayed before the player starts playing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond them by naming the exact permission scopes needed, explaining the delegate_to_contact_permissions authorization model, and warning that a mutation may "share access, notify people or incur provider charges" — concrete consequences an agent can reason about. It stops short of explaining reversibility or what happens to fields left unspecified.

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 is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, but the three-paragraph access-token boilerplate is heavy relative to the operational content and consumes most of the text. It is not padded so much as unbalanced: authorization detail dominates while the actual update semantics get nothing.

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, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the auth model and the confirm gate, which are the highest-risk unknowns, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. It is incomplete in not stating which attributes are updatable or what an unspecified field does, but an agent can call it correctly from schema plus description.

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% across all 10 parameters, including nested payload properties, so the schema already carries parameter meaning (e.g., tags replacing existing tags, null clearing custom metadata, payload vs payload_file mutual exclusion). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Updates the attributes on a media"), so the intent is unambiguous. However, "attributes" is generic and the description never enumerates what can be changed (name, tags, description, custom metadata, still image), so it does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_channel or update_thumbnail_customizations beyond the resource noun.

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 covers authorization prerequisites well (which permission sets permit the call, delegation tokens, and the confirm=true requirement), which is usage-relevant. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives — nothing tells the agent when to use bulk_tag instead of setting tags here, or when to prefer update_customizations. Usage is implied only by the resource.

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

Deploy Server