transcript_markdownDownload any YouTube video transcript as a Markdown file (no AI analysis).
Returns timestamped, linkable Markdown with video metadata header — ready to save as a .md file. For AI summaries use get_video_intelligence. Free, no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_url | No | YouTube video URL or video ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / x_paymentRemoved value: -{
- "default": "",
- "description": "Base64 x402 payment payload (required — pass the X-PAYMENT value as an argument over MCP)",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context the annotations don't carry: output is timestamped, linkable Markdown with a metadata header, and it's free/no payment required.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, followed by the alternative routing. No wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists to explain return values, annotations cover safety, and the description supplies output format, metadata header, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents video_url / video ID fully. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (download), resource (YouTube video transcript), and output format (Markdown file), plus an explicit exclusion ('no AI analysis'). This cleanly distinguishes it from get_video_intelligence and transcript_text siblings.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_video_intelligence for AI summaries, which is the key alternative. However it never mentions transcript_text (a listed sibling), leaving the plain-text vs Markdown choice to inference.
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.