youtube_transcriptGet the transcript (captions) of a YouTube video, via Audexum's API (https://audexum.com/docs).
Args:
url: A YouTube video link.
language: Preferred caption language, ISO 639-1. Default "en".
Free — does not spend credits (a daily allowance applies).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| language | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool is free, consumes no credits, and is subject to a daily allowance (a rate-limit disclosure), plus it points to the third-party API documentation.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block and a one-line cost note. Slightly redundant to restate parameter names in an Args list, but each item adds semantic detail the schema lacks.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, provider, cost model, and both parameters; only edge-case behavior (missing captions, unsupported language fallback) is absent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: url is defined as a YouTube video link and language as an ISO 639-1 preferred caption language with a default of "en". Format detail for language is supplied that the schema lacks, though no example codes or fallback behavior when the requested language is unavailable are given.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get the transcript (captions) of a YouTube video") and names the upstream provider. It is sufficiently distinct from the generic sibling 'transcribe' by virtue of the YouTube-specific scope, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with generate_speech.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is the right tool when the input is a YouTube URL. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and the nearest alternative, 'transcribe', is never mentioned or distinguished.
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.