YouTube MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, as it doesn't describe any operational traits beyond the basic action.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by specific parameter details in a formatted 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, errors), which would be beneficial even with an output schema. For a simple lookup tool, this is mostly sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description adds valuable semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It clarifies that the 'channel' parameter accepts a 'Channel URL or @handle' and provides examples ('@mkbhd' or 'https://youtube.com/@mkbhd'), which the schema alone does not specify. With only one parameter, this effectively compensates for the low schema coverage, making the parameter usage clear.

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 ('Get information') and resource ('about a YouTube channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_channel_videos' or 'get_video_info' by focusing on channel metadata rather than videos or transcripts. However, it doesn't specify what information is retrieved (e.g., subscriber count, description, uploads), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for channel data, there's no explicit comparison to siblings like 'search_channel_transcripts' or 'get_channel_videos' to clarify use cases. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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