YouTube Transcript MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-destructive operations with open-world assumptions. The description adds value by specifying the output format options (text, segments, both), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters. It is front-loaded with essential information and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and world assumptions), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers the core functionality and parameters without redundancy, suiting the context provided.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., URL formats, language codes, format options). The description mentions language and format parameters but does not add significant semantic details beyond what the schema provides, aligning with 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 ('Get'), resource ('full transcript of a YouTube video'), and scope ('in the specified language and format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transcript_summary' (which provides summaries) and 'search_transcript' (which searches within transcripts) by emphasizing retrieval of the complete transcript.

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 for obtaining full transcripts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_transcripts' (for multiple videos) or 'get_transcript_summary' (for summaries). It provides context through parameter specifications but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.