Retrieve top-level and reply comments for a specific YouTube video by ID, returning a paginated page of results.
Retrieve video comments (top-level & replies). Returns a page of comments for a specific YouTube video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | YouTube video ID (11-character code) | |
| continuation_token | No | Pagination token returned by a previous request, first page if empty |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination via 'page of comments' but does not explain how pagination works (e.g., continuation_token returns next page, first page if empty). It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior for videos with no comments. The description is minimal in transparency.
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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and specifying the return format. It is front-loaded with the key function and contains no redundant information.
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?
The description lacks detail about the response structure (e.g., fields like author, text, likes, reply nesting) and does not mention pagination semantics beyond 'page of comments.' For a comment retrieval tool with no output schema and potentially nested replies, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
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%: both parameters are well-described. The description adds 'top-level & replies,' which clarifies the type of comments returned but is already partially implied. This provides minimal added value beyond the 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 ('Retrieve') and the resource ('video comments (top-level & replies)'). It specifies the scope (for a specific YouTube video) and implies pagination ('Returns a page of comments'). It distinguishes itself from sibling YouTube tools like youtube_video or youtube_search by focusing on comments.
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 the tool is used when 'a specific YouTube video' is known via its ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like youtube_video (which may include comments) or other comment tools. No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.