video_listRead the latest videos from curated channels
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum videos per page, default 20, maximum 100 | |
| offset | No | Videos to skip | |
| category | No | Optional curated category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / categoryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional curated category",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional max number of videos (default all recent)"New value: +"Maximum videos per page, default 20, maximum 100"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Videos to skip",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional max number of videos (default all recent)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the main safety profile. The description adds useful context about curated channels and recency, which goes slightly beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core functionality without any redundant words, making it concise and easy to parse.
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 description is sufficient for a simple list operation with no output schema. It covers the main purpose and leaves parameter details to the schema, which is adequately complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
All three parameters (limit, offset, category) have descriptive schemas, so the description does not need to add much. The description provides no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('latest videos'), and the scope ('curated channels'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like video_read and video_search without needing to inspect them.
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?
The description implies a browsing use case ('latest videos from curated channels') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_search. It lacks direct guidance on when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.