Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

youtube_transcript

Retrieve captions or transcripts from a YouTube video by ID, with language selection, translation, timestamps, and text, SRT, or VTT output.

Instructions

Retrieve transcript for a YouTube video. Returns transcript segments for a YouTube video using YouTube's native player captions. Set format=text, format=srt, or format=vtt to receive plain-text output instead of the standard response envelope. Returns 404 when the video currently has no transcript/captions available in any language — this is a normal, non-retryable result, not an error condition. Returns 503 when the request is temporarily blocked or rate-limited; retrying after a short delay may succeed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesYouTube video ID (11-character code)
langNoPreferred transcript language
formatNoResponse format
timestampsNoInclude timestamps in the JSON response
translate_toNoTranslate transcript to this language code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "json",
+  "text",
+  "srt",
+  "vtt"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly explains the 404 (no captions available, non-retryable) and 503 (temporarily blocked, retryable) responses, which is valuable. It also mentions the format options. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits beyond 503, or what the standard response envelope contains, so it is not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then details format behavior, and finally explains error semantics. Each sentence contributes useful information, and it is not overly verbose. It could be slightly more concise by trimming redundancy (e.g., 'Returns transcript segments' appears twice), but overall it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, a 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the main output options and the two most common error scenarios. However, it does not describe the structure of the default JSON response beyond the existence of timestamps, nor does it mention how language fallback works or whether translation affects the response format. These are minor gaps for an agent to call it correctly, so it is slightly above average.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about the 'format' parameter, explaining that setting it to text/srt/vtt produces plain-text output instead of the standard envelope. It does not add extra meaning for id, lang, timestamps, or translate_to beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a transcript for a YouTube video, specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions using YouTube's native player captions. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'youtube_captions', which likely performs a similar function, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like youtube_captions or youtube_transcript_languages. It explains error handling but does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for the video to have captions enabled, nor does it give any exclusions or conditions for alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools