What is said in a YouTube video: transcript with timestamps, title and channel. Free, no key.
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another operation. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and unambiguous.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_youtube_transcript). No inconsistency exists because there are no other names to conflict with.
For a narrow single-purpose server (YouTube transcript retrieval), one tool is reasonable and earns its place. It is slightly thin and could benefit from a companion operation like listing available caption languages, but it is not a mismatch.
The tool covers the core domain well: title, channel, duration, full transcript with timestamps, and translation. Minor gaps include no way to list available languages or customize timestamp intervals, but agents can work around these.
Returns the title, channel, duration and full transcript (subtitles or automatic captions) of a public YouTube video, with a timestamp every 30 seconds. Can translate the captions (lang). Use when: you need to know what is said in a YouTube video, summarize it or quote it. Example: {"video":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Wanted language code (en, fr, nl…). Default: the video's own captions | |
| start | No | ||
| video | Yes | YouTube address (watch, youtu.be, shorts) or 11-character video id | |
| max_chars | No | ||
| timestamps | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavior beyond that: public-videos-only scope, subtitles vs. automatic captions, translation support, and a 30-second timestamp cadence. It omits what happens on truncation via max_chars and any rate-limit behavior, keeping it out of the top tier.
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 return payload, then usage conditions, then a concrete example — efficient and scannable. Slightly loose in mixing output description and conditional guidance in the same breath, but nothing is padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates returned fields, which is valuable. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage it leaves the truncation semantics of max_chars (default 20000, cap 50000) and the start offset unexplained, which is a material gap for long videos.
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 coverage is only 40%, and the description only illuminates two of five parameters: it implies the video argument via the example and mentions lang for translation. start, max_chars, and timestamps are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and the 30-second timestamp claim is the only hint at the timestamps flag.
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 (returns) and resource (title, channel, duration, full transcript of a public YouTube video), plus caption source and timestamp cadence. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed, and the scope is unambiguous.
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?
The 'Use when:' line gives concrete triggering conditions (need to know what is said, summarize, quote) and an example invocation. There are no alternative tools to route against, so the absence of exclusions is not a defect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_youtube_transcriptTurn any YouTube video into text: transcript, title, channel, timestamps.
Transcripts of YouTube videos, playlists and channels in any language: text, SRT, VTT or JSON.
Free YouTube transcripts, no API key: videos, channel lists, latest uploads, bulk download links.
Fetch the full transcript of any YouTube video as text, in any caption language. Free API key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
