Skip to main content
Glama

captapi

by io.github.CDCStream

youtube_playlist_videos

Paginated playlist contents — cursor/nextCursor/hasMore, same row shape as channel-videos. Flat 2 credits/page. Costs 2 credits. Empty results and failures are never charged. Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit (default always fresh).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesYouTube playlist URL, e.g. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=ID. The URL platform must match this endpoint's platform. Do not pass cross-platform URLs, e.g. YouTube to TikTok, Instagram to Facebook, LinkedIn to X/Twitter, or Pinterest to Rumble.
fastNoSet true to use YouTube RSS for faster results with less detailed metadata. Leave false when viewCount/duration quality matters.
cacheNoSet true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh.
limitNoMax items to return (default 50, max 500). Flat 2 credits per call.
cursorNoPagination cursor. Leave empty for the first page; then pass the nextCursor value returned in the previous response.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses pagination mechanics (cursor/nextCursor/hasMore), flat per-page credit cost, free 24-hour cache behavior, and that empty results and failures are never charged. This gives the agent a strong, accurate behavioral model before invocation.

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 description is four compact sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs cost, pagination, failure billing, and caching into dense but scannable clauses. Every sentence adds behavioral or usage-relevant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return envelope via cursor/nextCursor/hasMore and refers to a known row shape from channel-videos. It also covers cost, cache, and failure behavior. It is slightly dependent on the agent knowing what channel-videos returns, which prevents a perfect score, but it is otherwise complete for a paginated-list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further meaning by clarifying pagination contract (returned nextCursor value), the distinction between cache and fresh fetches, and the per-page cost tied to limit usage. These details go beyond the schema properties and help the agent reason about trade-offs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving paginated playlist contents, which aligns with the name youtube_playlist_videos. It references a specific row shape shared with channel-videos, which gives some orientation, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like youtube_playlist or youtube_channel_playlists.

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 description conveys clear usage context: paginated listing, cursor-based pagination, caching options, and costs. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as youtube_playlist or youtube_channel_videos, nor does it provide exclusions or comparison conditions. The 'same row shape as channel-videos' hint is indirect rather than actionable routing guidance.

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

All captapi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The platform-prefix convention keeps most of the 178 tools clearly separated, but several clusters are genuinely ambiguous: tiktok_live_info is explicitly described as 'Identical to TikTok Live', instagram_basic_profile and instagram_channel_details both return profile stats, and facebook_profile_posts overlaps with facebook_profile_reels. The generic 'Summarizer' descriptions for facebook_summarize, instagram_summarize, and tiktok_summarize provide no disambiguating detail at all.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant snake_case platform_resource_suffix pattern is followed remarkably consistently across 178 tools (e.g. youtube_channel_videos, tiktok_search_users, reddit_subreddit_posts). Minor deviations exist: the same creator resource is called 'channel' in some tools (tiktok_channel_details, instagram_channel_posts) but 'profile' or 'user' in others (facebook_profile_posts, twitch_user_videos, linnkme_profile); link-in-bio tools mostly use _page but linkme uses _profile; and the video_summarize/video_transcript pair lacks a platform prefix.

Tool Count2/5

At 178 tools this is far beyond what any agent can efficiently navigate in a single flat namespace, and even individual platform subsets exceed reasonable bounds (TikTok alone has ~34 tools, YouTube ~25). The sheer breadth of the multi-platform scope partially justifies the count, but the server would be far more usable split into per-platform servers.

Completeness4/5

The read-only data surface is impressively thorough: nearly every platform has profile + content + search + comments coverage, and TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are covered end-to-end including shops, ads, transcripts, and summaries. Notable gaps are minor: Twitter has no keyword search tool, LinkedIn lacks comments, and Reddit has no user-profile endpoint, but none of these create dead ends for the server's core data-retrieval purpose.

Resources