Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yt-analytics-mcp

yt-analytics-mcp

by KewkLW
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

yt_compare_creators

Build a tabbed HTML dashboard comparing YouTube creators from cached analytics. Include specific channels or all cached analyses for side-by-side comparison.

Instructions

Build or update a tabbed HTML comparison dashboard from cached analyses. Specify which channels to include, or omit to include all cached analyses. Returns the HTML file path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "yt_compare_creators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoDashboard title (default: "YouTube Creator — Deep Analytics")
channelsNoList of channel names/slugs to include. If omitted, includes all cached analyses.
output_pathNoOutput file path for the HTML dashboard. Defaults to data/creator-comparison.html

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds/updates an HTML file and returns the path, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing files, requires permissions, or if it is idempotent). The phrase 'from cached analyses' suggests read-only on cache, but not explicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 3 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it produces, how to include channels, and the return value. It could be slightly improved by noting prerequisites (e.g., that cached analyses must exist) or mentioning that the tool creates or overwrites a file, but overall it is quite complete for its simplicity.

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%, and the description adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the description's statement about omitting channels is identical to the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Build or update') and resource ('tabbed HTML comparison dashboard from cached analyses'). It distinguishes from siblings (yt_analyze_channel, yt_get_analysis, etc.) by focusing on comparison rather than individual analysis or retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by stating you can specify channels or include all, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like yt_list_analyses or yt_analyze_channel. No exclusions or context for when not to use.

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