YouTube Transcript Downloader
Server Details
An MCP server that gives any LLM or agent clean YouTube transcripts on demand: a single video, a whole channel, or a playlist, plus AI cleanup of auto-generated captions. API-key auth, credit-based, same backend as the public v1 API. Get a free API key with 25 free credits at youtubetranscriptdownload.com/account.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single video, channel recent videos, playlist videos, and caption cleaning. Descriptions explicitly guide when to use each, avoiding ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_channel_transcripts, get_playlist_transcripts, get_transcript, polish_transcript). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
Four tools is well-scoped for a transcript downloader: covering single video, batch from channel, batch from playlist, and a polishing feature. Neither too few nor too many.
The tool set covers the full expected lifecycle: retrieving transcripts from individual videos, channels, and playlists, plus a cleaning function for auto-generated captions. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_channel_transcriptsGet Channel TranscriptsARead-onlyInspect
Get transcripts for a YouTube channel's most recent videos (newest first) as timestamped markdown, one section per video. Use for research across a creator's recent output; for one known video use get_transcript. Read-only; requires an API key. Charges 1 credit per video that returns a transcript, including repeat calls; videos without captions are skipped free. A 10-video call typically costs up to 10 credits, so start with a small limit. Rate limit: 5 requests per 10 seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | YouTube channel URL or handle (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/@lexfridman or @lexfridman) | |
| limit | No | Number of most-recent videos to fetch, 1-50 (default 10). Upper bound on the credit charge for this call. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| failed | Yes | Videos skipped without charge (no captions) |
| channel | Yes | Channel name |
| succeeded | Yes | Videos that returned a transcript (each charged 1 credit) |
| creditsUsed | Yes | Credits charged for this call |
| totalVideos | Yes | Videos attempted in this call |
| transcripts | Yes | All transcripts as timestamped markdown, one section per video, divider-separated |
| creditsRemaining | Yes | Account balance after this call |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), the description adds critical details: requires API key, credit cost per video (1 credit), free for no-captions, repeat call charges, and rate limit (5 per 10 seconds). No contradictions with 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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output format, each sentence adds unique value. No wasted words.
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 2 well-documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral implications, and parameter nuances. No gaps.
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 covers both parameters (url, limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by giving examples for url and explaining limit's role as an upper bound on credit charges, which is not in 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 gets transcripts for a channel's most recent videos, specifying order and format. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_transcript for single videos, covering the primary 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?
It explicitly advises using this tool for research across recent output and names get_transcript for a single known video. However, it does not address when to use get_playlist_transcripts or polish_transcript, missing some sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_playlist_transcriptsGet Playlist TranscriptsARead-onlyInspect
Get transcripts for the videos in a YouTube playlist (in playlist order) as timestamped markdown, one section per video. Use for working through a course, series, or curated list; for one known video use get_transcript. Read-only; requires an API key. Charges 1 credit per video that returns a transcript, including repeat calls; videos without captions are skipped free. A 10-video call typically costs up to 10 credits, so start with a small limit. Rate limit: 5 requests per 10 seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | YouTube playlist URL (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxxxxxx) | |
| limit | No | Number of videos to fetch from the start of the playlist, 1-50 (default 10). Upper bound on the credit charge for this call. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| failed | Yes | Videos skipped without charge (no captions) |
| playlist | Yes | Playlist title |
| succeeded | Yes | Videos that returned a transcript (each charged 1 credit) |
| creditsUsed | Yes | Credits charged for this call |
| totalVideos | Yes | Videos attempted in this call |
| transcripts | Yes | All transcripts as timestamped markdown, one section per video, divider-separated |
| creditsRemaining | Yes | Account balance after this call |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant behavioral context: read-only, requires API key, credit charging per video with repeat calls, handling of missing captions (skipped free), and a rate limit of 5 requests per 10 seconds. These details go well beyond what annotations provide and disclose important operational 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?
The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence gives the main purpose and format, second sentence provides usage guidance, third and fourth detail behavioral aspects. 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, credit cost behavior, rate limit, and sibling alternatives. The presence of an output schema means return format is not needed. The description is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the limit as an 'upper bound on the credit charge' and recommending starting with a small limit, which enhances parameter understanding. Hence 4.
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 'get', resource 'playlist transcripts', format 'timestamped markdown', and ordering 'in playlist order'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'for one known video use get_transcript'. This meets the highest bar for purpose clarity.
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 explicitly gives when-to-use ('working through a course, series, or curated list') and when-not-to-use ('for one known video use get_transcript'). It also provides context-sensitive guidance like starting with a small limit due to credit costs. This is excellent usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transcriptGet YouTube TranscriptARead-onlyInspect
Get the full transcript of a single YouTube video as timestamped markdown. Read-only: fetches existing captions, modifies nothing. Requires an API key; each successful call charges 1 credit, including repeat calls for the same video, so reuse a transcript already in context instead of re-fetching. Videos without captions return an error and cost nothing. Rate limit: 5 requests per 10 seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video | Yes | YouTube video ID (e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ) or full video URL (youtube.com/watch?v=... or youtu.be/... forms) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Video title |
| videoId | Yes | YouTube video ID |
| transcript | Yes | Full transcript as timestamped markdown |
| creditsUsed | Yes | Credits charged for this call |
| creditsRemaining | Yes | Account balance after this call |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reinforces readOnlyHint=true by stating 'Read-only: fetches existing captions, modifies nothing.' Adds cost and rate limit info beyond annotations. Discloses error behavior for missing captions. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences: purpose and output, read-only and credit info, error and rate limit. Front-loaded with core function, no unnecessary words.
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?
Complete for a simple read-only tool: purpose, usage, cost, error handling, rate limit, and parameter covered. Output schema exists (not shown but noted). Sibling tools provided.
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?
Single parameter 'video' has schema description covering ID and URL formats (100% coverage). Description does not add parameter details, but schema suffices. Baseline 3 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?
Clearly states the tool gets the full transcript of a single YouTube video in timestamped markdown format. Distinguishes from siblings like get_channel_transcripts and get_playlist_transcripts which handle multiple videos.
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?
Provides explicit context: requires API key, charges 1 credit per call, recommends reusing transcripts in context, notes error for videos without captions (no cost), and rate limit. Could mention alternative tools like polish_transcript for modification, but siblings are listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
polish_transcriptPolish YouTube TranscriptARead-onlyInspect
Get a cleaned-up transcript of a YouTube video's auto-generated captions: punctuation and capitalisation restored, filler and false starts removed, paragraphs added, misheard names fixed, faithful to what was said. Use when raw captions are too messy to read or quote; for a plain transcript use get_transcript. Read-only; requires an API key. Each call charges credits by transcript length (about 3 per 1,000 words, minimum 5), including repeat calls, so keep the result in context. Human-uploaded captions (already clean) and transcripts over ~7,000 words return an error without charging. Rate limit: 5 requests per 10 seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video | Yes | YouTube video ID (e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ) or full video URL (youtube.com/watch?v=... or youtu.be/... forms) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Video title |
| videoId | Yes | YouTube video ID |
| transcript | Yes | Cleaned transcript as timestamped markdown |
| creditsUsed | Yes | Credits charged for this call (scales by length) |
| creditsRemaining | Yes | Account balance after this call |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature, API key requirement, credit charging per length, error for human-uploaded or long transcripts, and rate limit. No contradiction with 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?
Description is detailed but every sentence adds value; could be slightly shorter but still efficient for the information density.
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 the presence of output schema and annotations, the description fully covers usage context, behavior, costs, and constraints.
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 already covers 100% with description for 'video'; description adds value by clarifying accepted formats (ID, URL variants).
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?
Clearly states the tool produces a cleaned-up transcript with punctuation, capitalization, etc., and explicitly distinguishes from 'get_transcript' for plain 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?
Provides explicit when-to-use ('raw captions too messy'), alternative ('get_transcript'), and operational details (credit costs, error conditions, rate limit).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!