youtube_search
Read-onlyIdempotent
Search videos, channels, playlists.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | No | ||
| lang | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| token | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| upload_date | No |
YouTube
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination via token, result limits, or that it searches across multiple content types. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'geo', 'lang', 'token', or 'sort_by', nor does it describe the return format. The complexity of the tool demands much more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. The schema provides only types (all strings) with no enums or descriptions, so the agent has no idea what values are valid for 'type', 'sort_by', 'duration', 'upload_date', or 'token'. The description must compensate for the low coverage but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search videos, channels, playlists' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (YouTube content types), but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like youtube_channel_search or youtube_hashtag, which also perform searches. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (youtube_channel_search, youtube_hashtag, youtube_home_feed), the description should specify that this is a general search across all content types, while others are scoped. The lack of exclusions or alternatives makes usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.