Pullwire

YouTube Transcripts

youtube-transcripts

Read-only

Transcripts of YouTube videos with timestamps, chapters, language choice and video metadata. Costs 1 credit per result; failed items are free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "videos": "<videos>"
    },
    "name": "youtube-transcripts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`videos`	Yes	YouTube video URLs (watch, youtu.be, shorts, embed, live) or 11-character video IDs.
`languages`	No	Language codes in order of preference, e.g. de, en, pt-BR. Empty: the original transcript. If none is available, the default transcript is returned with languageMatched = false.
`maxResults`	No	Stop after this many transcripts. Empty: all videos.
`preferManual`	No	Use uploaded captions over auto-generated ones when both exist for a language.
`includeMetadata`	No	Adds title and channel. Views, duration, publish date and the language list are added when YouTube provides them.
`includeSegments`	No	Adds the transcript split into segments with start and end time in seconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds billing behavior with "1 credit per result; failed items are free," which is valuable, but it does not disclose rate limits, per-item failure behavior, or transcript availability constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and output features. The cost sentence is compact and important, with no unnecessary wording or buried information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more responsibility for explaining return values. It lists timestamps, chapters, language choice, and metadata, but does not clarify the transcript text format, per-video error representation, or whether chapters are always present, leaving it only minimally complete for a six-parameter retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters and their constraints are already documented. The description only alludes to language choice, timestamps, and metadata without adding syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the exact resource: transcripts of YouTube videos, including timestamps, chapters, language choice, and metadata. No sibling tool covers YouTube transcripts, and the output features make the purpose immediately identifiable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The implied use case, fetching YouTube transcripts, is clear from the purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives. The credit cost note is useful context but does not function as usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pullwire tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?