ytmcp

set_video_visibility

Change a YouTube video's visibility to public, unlisted, private, or scheduled, and set a required publish time for scheduled videos.

Instructions

Change a video's visibility.

Args: video_id: The YouTube video id. visibility: One of 'public', 'unlisted', 'private', 'scheduled'. publish_at: ISO-8601 datetime; required for 'scheduled'.

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>",
      "visibility": "<visibility>"
    },
    "name": "set_video_visibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`video_id`	Yes
`publish_at`	No
`visibility`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and largely fails: it never says who may call it, whether changes apply immediately, what happens to scheduled videos, or that making a video private removes public access. The one useful trait disclosed is that 'scheduled' requires publish_at.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The Args formatting is slightly boilerplate but each line carries a distinct parameter fact.

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 needn't be explained, and all parameters are covered. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the absence of permission, immediacy, and reversibility context leaves an agent under-informed.

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% with no enums, so the description compensates well by defining video_id, enumerating the four valid visibility values ('public', 'unlisted', 'private', 'scheduled'), and specifying publish_at's ISO-8601 format and its dependency on 'scheduled'. It stops short of clarifying interaction between visibility and publish_at beyond that.

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 ("Change a video's visibility") that is distinct from siblings like update_video_metadata and delete_video. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 vs. the parameter-overlapping update_video_metadata, nor any prerequisites or side-effect warnings. The only conditional given (publish_at required for 'scheduled') is parameter semantics, not usage context.

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