My TV Channel

Import YouTube video

import_youtube_video

Import a YouTube video that the OWNER UPLOADED THEMSELVES. This will not work for anyone else's video, by design — a channel built from other people's videos is a copyright problem for the owner.

Ownership is proved by a tag only the uploader can add:

The owner's tag looks like 'MyTVChannelApp#'. When the import fails for a missing tag, the 403 error message contains that account's exact tag string.
They paste that exact string into the video's description or tags on YouTube.
Retry the import.

You cannot do step 2 for them and you cannot bypass it. Public finished videos only: no live streams, no private or age-restricted videos, no playlists or channel URLs. Capped at 10 per day. Counts against the same weekly upload quota as everything else.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	A single-video YouTube URL (watch, shorts or youtu.be)
`tags`	No
`title`	No	Overrides the YouTube title
`weight`	No
`channel_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the ownership verification process, the 403 error containing the tag string, the impossibility of bypassing step 2, and the daily quota. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, etc.) and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although lengthy, every sentence provides essential procedural or restriction information, organized in clear numbered steps. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers usage, restrictions, error behavior, and quota, making it self-contained. With no output schema, it leads the agent through potential failure modes and prerequisites, and it is sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (url and weight have descriptions). The description does not explain the semantics of tags, title, weight, or channel_id. It mentions URL restrictions but those are already in the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool imports a YouTube video and explicitly restricts it to videos the OWNER uploaded themselves. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_video_from_url.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit when/when-not guidance: use only for owner's own videos, and it will not work for anyone else's. The tag verification steps and restrictions (public, no live/private, rate limits) further clarify appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All My TV Channel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct: channel lifecycle (create/get/update/archive/list), asset management (import/delete/list/set_asset_weight), schedule management (get/set/validate/regenerate), and transcode (get status/retry). Minor overlap exists between archive_channel and delete_asset, but descriptions clarify the scope (whole channel vs single video). import_video_from_url and import_youtube_video are distinct in source and ownership requirements.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: archive_channel, create_channel, delete_asset, get_channel, list_assets, set_asset_weight, validate_schedule_rules, etc. Verbs are action-oriented (create, get, list, update, archive, delete, import, set, regenerate, retry) and nouns are resource names (channel, asset, schedule, transcode). No mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do_thing'.

Tool Count5/5

19 tools is well-scoped for a TV channel management server covering channel lifecycle, asset ingestion, scheduling, and transcode monitoring. Each tool addresses a distinct need and the count feels proportional to the complexity of managing a 24/7 linear TV channel. Not bloated with redundant tools, and each has a clear purpose.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core domain comprehensively: channel CRUD (create, get, update, archive, list), asset management (import, delete, list, weight), scheduling (set rules, validate, regenerate, get schedule), and transcode monitoring (status, retry). Minor gaps: no direct way to upload local files (stated as a limitation), no channel deletion (only archive), and no ability to manage playlists explicitly. However, these are acknowledged design constraints or edge cases, so the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?