get_youtube_v3_channel_videosRetrieves videos, shorts, or livestreams from a specific YouTube channel. Group: YouTube-Channel. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code for localized content. | |
| channelId | Yes | The ID of the YouTube channel. | |
| nextToken | No | A token for paginating to the next set of results. | |
| contentType | Yes | The type of content to retrieve. Allowed values: videos, shorts, livestreams. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states 'Retrieves' (non-destructive) but omits mention of pagination (despite a nextToken parameter), potential output size, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves room for ambiguity.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or irrelevant details.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the response format, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. This lack of context makes it incomplete for understanding the full behavior.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no extra meaning. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3; the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 retrieves videos, shorts, or livestreams from a specific YouTube channel, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle playlists, posts, or channel details.
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 description implies usage for fetching video content from a channel, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_youtube_v3_channel_playlists or get_youtube_v3_channel_posts. However, the specificity of content types (videos, shorts, livestreams) provides adequate guidance.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct platform, resource, and action. Even the numerous YouTube search tools are clearly differentiated by their suffixes (channel, movie, playlist, video, suggestions), leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a rigid pattern: get_{platform}_v3_{resource}_{specific}. The naming is uniformly snake_case and descriptive, making it easy to predict tool names for new resources.
With 28 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for being considered too many. The high granularity, especially the six YouTube search tools, could likely be consolidated without losing capability, making the tool count feel heavy.
Core download workflows are present via post details for all platforms, but there are notable gaps: Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok lack tools to list a user's posts or videos, while YouTube has full coverage including channel videos, playlists, and search. This unevenness leaves the surface feeling incomplete for non-YouTube platforms.