ytmcp

list_comments

Retrieve top-level comments for a YouTube video by video ID, with an optional limit to control how many comments are returned.

Instructions

List top-level comments for a video.

Args: video_id: The YouTube video id. limit: Maximum number of comments 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": {
      "video_id": "<video_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`video_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

B3.2/5.0

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, yet it discloses almost nothing: no pagination/ordering behavior, no authentication or quota requirements, and no indication of what happens when comments are disabled. "Top-level" is the only behavioral signal.

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?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded and waste-free. The following Args block is somewhat redundant with the JSON schema, which keeps it out of 5 territory, but it is short and not padded.

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. However, with zero annotations and no pagination, ordering, or error-condition context, the definition is only minimally complete for a listing tool that an agent may need to page through.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does name and gloss both parameters (video_id as the YouTube video id, limit as the max comments returned), but the glosses largely restate the field names and add no format, range, or default detail beyond the schema's own default of 20.

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 ... comments for a video") and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ("top-level"), which implicitly distinguishes it from reply_to_comment and moderate_comment. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool lists comments, and the "top-level" qualifier hints that replies are handled elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings (e.g., moderate_comment) and no stated prerequisites such as whether comments must be enabled or the video public.

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