ytmcp

delete_playlist

Delete a YouTube playlist using its ID to remove unwanted or outdated collections from a channel.

Instructions

Delete a playlist.

Args: playlist_id: Playlist id to delete.

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": {
      "playlist_id": "<playlist_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playlist_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it requires ownership/permissions, or what happens to videos that were in the playlist. 'Delete a playlist' gives no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the action. The Args block is minimally informative but not verbose; nothing extraneous, though also nothing added.

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

Completeness2/5

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 are covered, but the description omits critical mutation context: no annotations, no reversibility, no permission info, and 0% param documentation. For a destructive operation it is significantly under-specified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter playlist_id, and the description only restates it as 'Playlist id to delete.' There is no format, source, or constraint information to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Delete) and resource (playlist) clearly, so the agent immediately knows the outcome. It lacks any sibling differentiation, e.g. vs. delete_video or remove_video_from_playlist, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_video_from_playlist or delete_video. The agent must infer context from the name alone; there are no prerequisites, warnings, or exclusion conditions stated.

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