ytmcp

create_playlist

Creates a new playlist on your YouTube channel with a title, optional description, and visibility setting (public, unlisted, or private). Use it to organize channel content.

Instructions

Create a new playlist on the channel.

Args: title: Playlist title. description: Playlist description. visibility: One of 'public', 'unlisted', 'private'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`title`	Yes
`visibility`	No	private
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 signals a mutation ('Create') but says nothing about auth requirements, whether titles must be unique, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact args list; no filler sentences. The docstring-style formatting is clean and each line carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the params are covered by the args list. However, for a create/mutation tool with no annotations, the absence of any behavioral or prerequisite context leaves a real gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents all three parameters and, importantly, supplies the enum values for visibility ('public', 'unlisted', 'private') that the schema omits. It does not state the default ('private'), but it compensates well beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new playlist on the channel'), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_playlist or list_playlists. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the create action is inherently distinguished from the read/delete siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_playlists, add_video_to_playlist, or delete_playlist, nor any prerequisites or channel-scope conditions. The use case is inferrable from the name but the description adds nothing.

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