runsheet_list_playlistsList playlists on a connected YouTube channel with their IDs and video counts. Use it to find the playlist ID for runsheet_file_to_playlist.
The playlists on the connected channel, with their ids and how many videos each holds. Use this to find the id for runsheet_file_to_playlist. Read only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declare the safety profile, so 'Read only' is largely redundant with the annotation. The description does add useful behavioral context by describing the shape of what comes back (ids plus per-playlist video counts), but it says nothing about pagination, limits, or auth requirements on a potentially large remote listing.
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?
Two tight sentences that lead with what the tool returns and follow with the downstream use case. The trailing 'Read only' is a minor redundancy with the annotation rather than wasted space.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return payload (playlist ids and video counts) and the intended follow-up tool. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits any note on result size or pagination for an open-world channel listing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead points at the returned id field the caller will want to consume.
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 names a specific verb and resource (list the playlists on the connected channel) and even summarizes the payload (ids and video counts), which is more than the title conveys. It is clear enough to distinguish from the other runsheet_get_* readers, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
It gives a concrete trigger: 'Use this to find the id for runsheet_file_to_playlist.' That tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool over the other listing/reading siblings. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternative listers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.