Escape hatch: call any path on the YouTube backend. Pass path (e.g. /search), optional method (default GET), query map, and JSON body for POST. Prefer the named youtube_* tools when available; this is for routes not in the manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| method | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations claim readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description instructs passing a JSON body for POST and the schema allows DELETE/PUT/PATCH. Calling arbitrary backend routes with mutating methods can have side effects, so the read-only hint is misleading. The description does not warn about authentication, scoping, or response behavior beyond the bare call mechanics.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'escape hatch' purpose and containing no filler. Every clause carries operational information.
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?
The definition covers the core invocation data clearly, and for an arbitrary-route escape hatch a fixed response format cannot be documented. It lacks any mention of error handling or authentication expectations, but given the generic scope and sibling guidance, it is adequately complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It explains path with an example, the method default, the query map, and the body-for-POST usage. That is enough for an agent to construct a call, though body and query structures remain loosely typed.
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 names the generic backend-call purpose, shows an example path, and explicitly contrasts with the named youtube_* sibling tools. An agent can distinguish this escape hatch from the specialized tools immediately.
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 says to prefer the named youtube_* tools when available and reserve this tool for routes not in the manifest. This is explicit selection guidance with a clear exclusion criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.