ytmcp

remove_video_from_playlist

Remove a specific video from a YouTube playlist by providing its playlist ID and video ID.

Instructions

Remove a video from a playlist.

Args: playlist_id: Target playlist id. video_id: Video id to remove.

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>",
      "video_id": "<video_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_video_from_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`video_id`	Yes
`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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but says nothing about whether removal is destructive/permanent, whether it requires write permission on the playlist, whether it is idempotent, or what error surfaces for a missing video.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument block is compact. There is some redundancy in the Args lines repeating the parameter names, but no filler prose.

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 not be explained, but for a two-required-parameter mutation with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is missing side effects, permission requirements, and failure modes that an agent needs before calling it.

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 should compensate. Instead it only restates the parameter names ('Target playlist id', 'Video id to remove') with no format, ID-source, or validation detail, adding essentially nothing over the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('a video from a playlist'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_video_to_playlist' and from 'delete_video'/'delete_playlist'. It is clear without being explicitly comparative, so a 4 rather than 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 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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as needing ownership of the playlist or authenticated channel, and no note on what happens if the video isn't in the playlist. The inverse sibling 'add_video_to_playlist' is never referenced.

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