youtube_get_videosRetrieve details and statistics for up to 50 YouTube videos by ID, costing one quota unit. Use it to look up video metadata and metrics in a single batched request.
Get details and statistics for up to 50 videos by ID. Costs 1 quota unit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, open-world, and safety, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two genuinely new traits — a 1-unit quota cost and the 50-video batch cap. It says nothing about partial failures (invalid/private/deleted IDs) or what statistics are actually returned.
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, zero filler, with the batching constraint and quota cost both front-loaded before any invocation decision is made.
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?
With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and quota cost plus batch size cover the main call-time risks. A note on what happens with unknown/private IDs would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does convey the key semantics: the single parameter is a list of video IDs, capped at 50. It stops short of item format details (bare ID vs. URL) or behavior when the array is empty.
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?
A concrete verb+resource ('Get details and statistics for ... videos') with a clear scoping constraint ('up to 50', 'by ID'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from youtube_search (ID lookup vs. query), but never names that sibling or any other, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals you need IDs already in hand (presumably from youtube_search), and 'up to 50' hints at batching. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the agent must reconstruct the workflow itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.