get_channel_videosList the videos of a YouTube channel (id, title, duration, URL) without fetching transcripts. Accepts @handle, channel URL, or UC… channel id. Costs 1 credit. Chain into get_transcripts to bulk-extract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max videos to list, default 100. | |
| channel | Yes | Channel @handle, URL, or UC… id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the cost of 1 credit and the output fields, but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on invalid input.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input formats, cost, and chaining guidance. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks some context like error handling or output structure beyond the basic fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists a channel's videos with specific output fields, and explicitly notes it does not fetch transcripts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transcripts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It specifies when to use this tool (to list videos) and suggests chaining with get_transcripts for bulk extraction, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives like get_latest_videos or search_channel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct stage: channel discovery, playlist discovery, search, and transcript retrieval. The singular vs batch transcript tools are clearly separated by single-call vs bulk-call behavior, and the two search tools are scoped by global versus channel-limited search.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for retrieval/search operations and search_channel/search_youtube for search operations. The naming directly reflects the resource and makes the tool surface highly predictable.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for the server's stated purpose: discover YouTube videos, extract transcripts, and bulk-process them. Each tool serves a clear workflow need, and none feel redundant or ornamental.
The workflow is complete from video discovery (channel, playlist, latest, search) through to transcript retrieval (single and batch). Gaps such as channel-level playlist listing or TikTok channel discovery are peripheral; the core YouTube transcript workflow has no dead ends.