get_youtubeYouTube Radar (0–2 curated videos) with freshness. Call this when you want the team's latest curated video.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_youtube"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful cardinality context ("0–2", i.e. the call may return nothing) but leaves "with freshness" undefined and says nothing about what the returned items contain or how current they are.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the usage cue immediately after. The only weak spot is the unexplained phrase "with freshness," which occupies space without resolving meaning.
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 parameterless tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn the return shape (titles? links? timestamps?) and what "freshness" guarantees. Those gaps are noticeable for a data-retrieval 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 tool takes zero parameters with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.
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?
Names a specific resource (the team's curated YouTube videos) and states expected cardinality (0–2) plus a recency quality ('with freshness'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't distinguish itself from radar-style siblings like get_news_radar or get_signal_cards.
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?
"Call this when you want the team's latest curated video" gives an explicit trigger, but it largely restates the purpose and provides no when-not guidance or named alternatives among the ~34 sibling tools. An agent gets a positive cue but no routing logic for overlapping news/radar tools.
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.