Upload a generated draft to YouTube. Free tier returns a sandbox preview URL (demo-only). Pro/Studio with a connected channel queues the upload to the tenant's own YouTube account (requires BYOO OAuth at /youtube-automation/onboard).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publish | No | ||
| tenantVideoId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses free-tier sandbox behavior and Pro/Studio OAuth requirement. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens after upload (e.g., success response).
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main action. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points for tier behavior, but it is clear and non-redundant.
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 2 simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains tier behavior but omits the success response (e.g., returns video ID or URL for Pro). Without output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 2 parameters (tenantVideoId, publish) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'generated draft' but does not explain what tenantVideoId refers to or the effect of the publish boolean. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly set parameters.
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's purpose: 'Upload a generated draft to YouTube.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of sibling tools (e.g., youtube_generate_video) distinguishes this upload action from generation or performance retrieval.
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 explains when to use the tool (for uploading a generated draft) and provides tier-specific behavior (free vs. Pro/Studio), including the need for BYOO OAuth. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools for other scenarios.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes and clear descriptions, but there is some potential confusion among the four Polymarket-related tools (categorize, edge, signals, top_traders) and among the multiple 'alya_' prefixed tools that query different data sources.
Naming patterns are mixed: some tools use 'alya_' prefix, others use action-based names like 'batch_calibrate' or 'image_gen', and YouTube tools all start with 'youtube_'. The inconsistency in prefixes and verb styles makes the set less predictable.
32 tools is high for an MCP server, and they span a wide, unrelated set of domains (Polymarket, YouTube, gemology, weather, earthquakes, health, celebrity, etc.), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.
Each domain has incomplete coverage: Polymarket lacks trade execution, YouTube automation depends on external OAuth, health tools only offer diagnosis and drug interactions without follow-up, and other domains have minimal tooling. The server feels like a collection of one-off features rather than a coherent surface.