YouTube Transcript MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by specifying the time-based chunking output format and its purpose for analysis. It does not contradict annotations, and it provides useful context about the tool's output structure beyond what annotations cover.

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 feature (time-based chunks). It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (read-only, non-destructive, open-world), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the output format (time-based chunks) and purpose, which complements the structured data without redundancy.

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%, so the description does not need to detail parameters. It mentions 'time-based chunks' which aligns with the 'chunk_minutes' parameter, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 specific action ('Get a transcript organized into time-based chunks') and resource ('transcript'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_transcript' (likely raw transcript) and 'search_transcript' (search functionality). It explicitly mentions the purpose of easier analysis for long videos, which adds valuable context.

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 analyzing long videos by organizing transcripts into chunks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transcript' or 'search_transcript'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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