get_insightsViews, likes, replies, reposts, quotes and shares for one publish. Views and shares can be null when the platform does not report them yet — null is not zero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A publish id (post_…), the post's own id on the channel, or a post link (the URL you would open in a browser to see it). Links work for posts written in the channel's own app too, as long as the account is connected here. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing an important null-value behavior: views and shares can be null when not yet reported, and null is not zero. This prevents misinterpretation of missing counts. The annotation already covers safety, so the added null semantics meaningfully improves transparency.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core metric list is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical null caveat is placed second, earning its place as necessary behavioral clarification.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what data will be returned and how to interpret null values. The schema covers the identifier semantics. The only gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, but the low complexity makes the definition largely complete.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including accepted formats like post_… IDs and post links. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the tool targets one publish, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource ('one publish') and the specific data returned (views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes, shares). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_post or list_posts because it focuses on metrics rather than content or listings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Usage context is implied: an agent can infer to use this tool when it needs engagement metrics for a single publish. However, the description gives no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance, such as contrasting with get_post or list_posts, and offers no exclusions or preconditions.
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 clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions actively steer usage (e.g., get_post vs open_post, list_posts vs list_channel_posts). A few pairs like list_accounts vs select_channels or get_post vs open_post still require careful reading to pick the right one, but the overlap is manageable.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (delete_post, get_insights, list_accounts, select_channels), which is consistent and predictable. A few bare-verb names like publish and reply, plus the media_* prefixed tools, break the strict pattern but still feel coherent within their subdomains.
20 tools is on the heavier side, but the breadth is justified by the server's scope: publishing, media upload workflows, reply threads, insights, quotas, and account selection. Each tool has a real job, though the four post-retrieval variants and five media tools could feel redundant at a glance.
The core lifecycle is well covered: publish, reply, delete, retry, retrieve, list, and get insights, plus multi-step media handling. Minor gaps exist, such as no general post editing, no delete-reply action beyond hiding, and limited scheduling outside YouTube, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.