Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

youtube_transcript_languages

List transcript languages for a YouTube video by its 11-character video ID, including language code, auto-generated status, and translation support. Pick a language before requesting a transcript.

Instructions

List transcript languages for a YouTube video. Lists the transcript languages available for a YouTube video by its 11-character video id. Each entry has the language name and code, whether the track is auto-generated, and whether it can be translated. Use it to pick a language before requesting a transcript.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesYouTube video ID (11-character code)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it usefully discloses the shape of each returned entry (name, code, auto-generated, translatable). It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or behavior on an invalid/absent id, but for a simple read-only listing it adds solid context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two sentences are near-verbatim restatements of one another ("List transcript languages..." / "Lists the transcript languages available..."), which is redundant. The useful workflow guidance and return-field detail are front-loaded, but a sentence could be cut.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, when to call it, and what the response contains. It could add error/edge-case behavior (invalid id) but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's "by its 11-character video id" merely restates the schema's "YouTube video ID (11-character code)" rather than adding new meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (transcript languages for a YouTube video), and even enumerates the fields returned (language name and code, auto-generated flag, translatable flag). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_transcript and youtube_captions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it to pick a language before requesting a transcript" gives clear workflow context and positions the tool relative to the downstream transcript-fetch step. It lacks an explicit named alternative or a when-not-to-use clause, keeping it just below a 5.

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