ytmcp

get_top_videos

Retrieve a YouTube channel's most-viewed videos by channel ID, with an optional limit, to analyze top-performing content.

Instructions

Get a channel's most-viewed videos.

Args: channel_id: Channel id. limit: Maximum number of videos to return.

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": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_top_videos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`channel_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

C2.6/5.0

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no ordering guarantee, no mention of how 'most-viewed' is computed or over what period, no pagination or permission requirements. Only the bare operation is stated.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded and economical. However, the 'Args' block largely duplicates the schema titles and default, adding length without information.

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 need no explanation, but for a read tool with zero annotations the description leaves out ordering semantics, time window, and auth context. An agent could invoke it but would not understand what it is actually ranking.

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%, so the description must compensate, but 'channel_id: Channel id.' merely restates the schema title and gives no format (raw ID vs handle vs URL). 'limit: Maximum number of videos to return.' is slightly more informative but omits valid range and interaction with ordering.

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+resource with a scope qualifier ('most-viewed'), which implicitly distinguishes it from list_channel_videos and search_videos. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the ranking semantics are clear enough to route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. With siblings like list_channel_videos and search_videos, the agent must guess whether 'top videos' means ranked-by-views or filtered list, and there is no exclusion or condition stated.

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