media_upload_statusHas the person uploaded yet? Returns waiting, ready or expired, plus every media id uploaded through that link. Pass those ids to publish as mediaIds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The token from media_upload_link. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about the possible return statuses (waiting, ready, expired) and how the returned media IDs can be passed to publish, which goes beyond the annotation.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and output, and the second sentence provides actionable guidance, making it highly efficient.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return values (statuses and media IDs) and their downstream usage. It omits only edge-case details like what 'expired' means operationally, but the essentials are present.
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 100% and the token parameter is described as coming from media_upload_link. The description reinforces this by referring to 'that link' and explaining the token's role, but it doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function as checking upload status, enumerates the possible statuses (waiting, ready, expired), and mentions that it returns media IDs. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like media_upload_link and media_complete by focusing on status checking and providing next-step guidance.
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 implies a clear workflow: use this tool to check whether an upload has occurred via a link, then use the returned media IDs in a publish call. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling list make the use case unambiguous.
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.