YouTube MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default values and limits (20 default, 100 max), which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the returned videos will have (though output schema exists).

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clean 'Args:' section that documents each parameter efficiently with examples and constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It thoroughly documents all input parameters (compensating for 0% schema coverage) and the core functionality. However, for a data retrieval tool with siblings, it lacks usage context and some behavioral details that would help an agent use it effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameter documentation. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'channel' (accepts URL or @handle with example), 'limit' (default and maximum values), and 'sort' (two valid values with explanations). This provides clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 videos') and resource ('from a YouTube channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' or 'search_videos', which also deal with YouTube video retrieval in different contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_video_info' (for specific video details), 'search_videos' (for broader searches), and 'get_channel_info' (for channel metadata), there's no indication of when this channel-specific video listing tool is most appropriate.

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