youtube-media-mcp-server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that the tool returns 'titles, ratings, cast', which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two-sentence description plus parameter list. Purpose stated first, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers what it does, input details, and output contents. No missing information for typical use.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query is a movie/show title with example, max_results with default value. Adds meaning beyond raw 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?

Description states verb 'Search' and resource 'IMDB', specifies 'movies and TV shows'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings (search_podcasts, youtube_transcript).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and contrast with sibling tools, but no exclusions or conditions mentioned.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation. Does not mention pagination, rate limits, or result behavior.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and explaining parameters without waste.

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 no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., list of episodes). Siblings are not distinguished in usage context. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters with examples and default, compensating for the schema gap effectively.

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 states 'Search for podcast episodes by topic' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (imdb_search, youtube_transcript) by domain, though it lacks specific scope (e.g., which podcast database).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies podcast search but provides no context for selection over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which indicate this is a safe read operation with potential for various inputs. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior (e.g., video without captions). Given annotation coverage, the description meets the minimum but does not exceed.

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 concise: one sentence defining the action, followed by two bullet-point parameter definitions. Every word adds value, and the core action is front-loaded. No redundancies or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., plain text or JSON) or error conditions, which would be useful for complete understanding. Still, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, meaning the input schema lacks property descriptions. However, the description compensates by explicitly listing both parameters and providing an example URL for video_url and a default for language. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though more detail on language format (e.g., ISO codes) would be helpful.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'transcript/subtitles from a YouTube video'. It distinguishes from siblings like imdb_search and search_podcasts, which are clearly different domains.

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 provides a clear example URL for the video_url parameter, indicating how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., other transcript sources). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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