video_searchSearch YouTube by keyword using this instance's search quota. Results are not restricted to the curated channels
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to search for | |
| channel | No | Exact YouTube channel ID when the user requests a particular channel; obtain it from search results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / channelAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Exact YouTube channel ID when the user requests a particular channel; obtain it from search results",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Video search query"New value: +"What to search for"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about quota consumption and the uncurated result scope, though it does not explain what happens when quota is exhausted or what the result payload looks like.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core search behavior and the key scope qualifier are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to absorb quickly.
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?
For a simple, read-only search with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing piece is explicit detail about the return shape or result limits, but that is not critical for invoking 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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds only the term 'keyword' and quota context, which does not materially expand on the schema. This meets the baseline for well-documented parameters.
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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('YouTube'), and the mechanism ('by keyword'). It also adds a differentiating trait by noting results are not restricted to curated channels, which helps distinguish this from list/read tools.
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 usage context by mentioning the instance's search quota and the non-curated result scope, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is reasonable but left largely to inference.
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.