youtube-media-mcp-server

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

ReadOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already set, so the safety profile is known. The description adds return fields and the default for max_results, but does not disclose potential behavior such as no-result handling, rate limits, or external API dependency. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One sentence plus a two-parameter argument list; every element earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With only two simple params, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides essential information: search scope, return fields, and parameter semantics. It could mention error/edge behavior but is otherwise complete for a basic search tool.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: query is defined as 'Movie or show title' with the example 'Inception', and max_results is defined as 'Max results (default 10)'. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 begins with 'Search IMDB for movies and TV shows' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_podcasts and youtube_transcript. It also names return content (titles, ratings, cast), reinforcing the purpose.

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 phrase 'for movies and TV shows' defines the applicable scope and implicitly distinguishes this from podcasts and transcript tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, but the domain separation is clear.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal context (topic-based search) and defaults (max_results=20) beyond annotations, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or return format. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides rich behavioral detail.

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, starting with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a structured Args list. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant information. It efficiently conveys purpose and parameters.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and parameter semantics. It does not describe return values or pagination, but the tool's purpose ('Search for podcast episodes') implies a list of results. Given the low complexity and annotation coverage, this is mostly complete, though a note on return structure would improve it.

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% (bare properties), but the description explicitly documents both parameters via an Args section: 'query' with an example ('AI startups') and 'max_results' with its default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear meaning and usage for each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and a clear resource 'podcast episodes', with the qualifier 'by topic'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like imdb_search (movies) and youtube_transcript (transcripts), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states it searches podcast episodes, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear, but exclusions or sibling differentiation are missing.

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, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, video availability constraints, or return format). It aligns with the annotation but provides no additional transparency beyond what the annotation already conveys.

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 clear purpose sentence followed by two brief parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, so the description should explain the return value. However, it only says 'Extract transcript/subtitles' without specifying the output format (e.g., plain text, timestamped JSON, or whether it returns the full transcript or a portion). This leaves a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool, despite the simplicity of the inputs.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: video_url includes a concrete example URL, and language specifies a default value 'en'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition and would be essential for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' with a clear target resource ('transcript/subtitles from a YouTube video'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like imdb_search and search_podcasts, which are search-oriented and unrelated to video transcripts.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving YouTube transcripts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools are not similar, so there is no explicit comparison, but the intended use case is inferable from the purpose statement.

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