SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

YouTube channel public details by @handle from the channel

dev_youtube_channel

Read-only

YouTube channel public details by @handle from the channel page: channel id, name, description (YouTube truncates it), subscriber count as YouTube rounds it (e.g. 44.7 million) and exact video count. Public page data; English locale; no per-video stats. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "dev_youtube_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes	Channel handle without @, e.g. TED

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`handle`	No
`source`	No
`channelId`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`videoCount`	No
`description`	No
`subscribersText`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds substantive behavior: the channel description is truncated by YouTube, subscriber count is rounded (with an example format), video count is exact, results are English-locale public page data, and billing is $0.002 USDC via x402 with failed calls uncharged. That billing and data-fidelity detail is genuinely beyond the annotations, though the payment mechanics (how x402 settlement is triggered) are left implicit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and return fields before the caveats and price. Every clause carries information, though the pricing sentence is long enough that a reader might skim past the 'failed calls are not charged' condition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still flags the two field-level gotchas (truncated description, rounded subscribers) that would otherwise mislead. Locale, scope exclusions, and cost are all covered; only the mechanics of paying/settling via x402 are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already specifies the handle is given without '@' plus an example. The description reinforces the addressing model ('by @handle from the channel page') without contradicting it, but adds no new syntax or format constraints beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline-plus level rather than enriching the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (fetch public YouTube channel details) and enumerates exactly what comes back: channel id, name, description, subscriber count, exact video count. An agent knows precisely what it gets and, via 'no per-video stats', what it does not.

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?

Usage boundaries are implied rather than stated: 'Public page data; English locale; no per-video stats' tells the agent when this tool is insufficient, and 'by @handle' tells it the required addressing mode. There is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative for video-level or non-English data, so an agent must infer routing.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?