ytmcp

list_channel_videos

Fetch a channel's uploaded videos, newest first, using a channel ID and optional limit. Use it to check recent uploads or build video lists.

Instructions

List a channel's uploaded videos (newest first).

Args: channel_id: The channel id (starts with 'UC'). 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": "list_channel_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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the sort order ('newest first'). However, it says nothing about pagination, whether only public videos are returned, or auth requirements — meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with the args listed compactly afterward. Slight overhead from the args-block formatting, but every line 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented. Only pagination and visibility scope are unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a straightforward list tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents both parameters and adds the valuable 'starts with UC' format constraint for channel_id. The limit description is minimal but adequate given the schema's default.

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 ('List a channel's uploaded videos') plus the ordering ('newest first'), which implicitly distinguishes it from get_top_videos and search_videos. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives such as get_top_videos or search_videos. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration path from the tool name alone.

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