Approve, hold, or reject a YouTube comment by comment ID, enabling AI agents to manage channel moderation.
Moderate a comment (approve, hold, or reject).
Args: comment_id: Target comment id. action: One of 'published', 'heldForReview', 'rejected'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | published | |
| comment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what approving/holding/rejecting actually does to the comment, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or that it is a mutation with side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded elements with no filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly schema-like but efficient; nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 described, and the params are covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits effects, permissions, and reversibility, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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, and it does: both parameters are documented, and the action values are enumerated with human-readable glosses ('approve', 'hold', 'reject') that the bare schema lacks. It could go further by explaining the default of 'published'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (moderate) and resource (comment) and enumerates the three possible outcomes (approve, hold, reject), which maps directly onto the action values. This cleanly separates it from the sibling read/reply tools list_comments and reply_to_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The purpose implies usage, but nothing tells the agent when moderating is appropriate versus replying or listing, nor any prerequisite (e.g. ownership/permission).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.