ytmcp

update_channel_branding

Update a YouTube channel's banner, avatar, and profile links to refresh its branding.

Instructions

Update channel branding: banner, avatar, and profile links.

Args: banner_path: Local path to a new banner image. avatar_path: Local path to a new avatar image. links: List of {'title': ..., 'url': ...} profile links.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_channel_branding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`links`	No
`avatar_path`	No
`banner_path`	No

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 but stays silent on key traits: whether this is a partial update (all three params default to null), what happens to omitted fields (preserved or cleared), reversibility, and required auth scope. Only the argument shapes are conveyed.

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 is front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor cost is the Python-style 'Args:' formatting that is slightly boilerplate.

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, and all three params are described. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves gaps around partial-update semantics, permissions, and failure modes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only source of parameter meaning — and it delivers: banner_path/avatar_path are 'Local path to a new ... image' and links is a list of {'title','url'} objects. This compensates well for the undocumented schema, though it omits accepted file formats and size limits.

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 and resource ('Update channel branding') and enumerates exactly which sub-resources are touched: banner, avatar, profile links. No sibling tool in the list deals with channel branding, so differentiation is implicit but unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what permissions or channel ownership is required, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_channel_info. The agent must infer that this is the sole branding mutation path.

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