get_v1_channel_playlistsChannel Playlists Group: Channel. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_v1_channel_playlists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gl | No | ||
| hl | No | ||
| id | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| filter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing credits, which is incidental and not a behavioral trait. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) exist, or any required authentication scopes. This is severely lacking.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains two fragments that provide almost no useful information. While it is undeniably brief, the brevity comes at the cost of any substantive content.
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?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for all missing context. It fails to explain what the tool does, what the parameters do, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no required fields, this is completely inadequate.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (gl, hl, id, cursor, filter). While some parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., id, cursor), the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema. The tool also has zero required parameters, but the description does not explain how optionality works or what combinations are valid.
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 'Channel Playlists Group: Channel. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the tool's name and Billing metadata. It does not state any verb or action, nor does it clarify what the tool does beyond what the name suggests. This is a tautology, failing to distinguish it from siblings like get_v1_channel_videos.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, common use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools. It does not mislead, so it falls at 'no guidance' rather than 'misleading'.
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.