Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_related_videosA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses free usage, default/max limit, and relationship to seed video. Lacks explicit rate limits or details about return format, but adequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and limit, each sentence adds value. No fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema, but description implies list of related videos. Sufficient for a simple tool; could mention what each result contains but not critical.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds nuance like 'up to' and 'Full YouTube URL', but mostly repeats schema info.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Title and description clearly state the tool returns YouTube's 'Up next' related videos for a given video, distinguishing it from siblings like search_videos. Verb 'return' and specific resource.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly suggests using to expand research or find adjacent content. Mentions it's free. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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

• get_video_metadataA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is free and lists what metadata is returned. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only metadata lookup the transparency is satisfactory.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences: what the tool returns, what it does not do (with alternative), and a use case. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the expected output and typical use case. No gaps remain for standard usage.

  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?

  The input schema already fully describes the single 'url' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states the tool looks up title, channel, duration, view count, upload date, and caption tracks. It contrasts with extract_transcript by noting it does NOT pull the transcript, effectively distinguishing from a key sibling.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect a video before extracting or to discover caption languages. It explicitly names extract_transcript as the alternative for transcript retrieval, and mentions it's free with no credits charged.

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

• extract_transcriptA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses costs (credit tiers based on length), caching behavior (30 days free for cached extracts), and return content (title, channel, duration, language, transcript with clickable timestamps). No contradictions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Every sentence is useful: purpose, usage, costs, caching, return structure. No redundancy or fluff. Well-organized into clear paragraphs.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (title, channel, duration, language, transcript with clickable timestamps). Parameter descriptions are covered in schema. No gaps.

  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 100%. The description adds extra context to the url parameter with examples (youtube.com/watch?v=…, youtu.be/…, or shorts) and to lang with BCP-47 examples and default. This goes beyond the schema's format and pattern constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it pulls a YouTube transcript and returns it as Markdown with timestamps. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_related_videos, get_video_metadata, search_videos) which perform different functions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user provides a YouTube URL and wants to summarise, quote, search, or otherwise process the video's spoken content.' It does not directly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the use case is clearly defined and siblings are unrelated.

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

• search_videosA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description discloses default limit, max, and that it's free. Does not mention sorting or pagination, but the return fields are fully listed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, first states purpose and key behavior, second gives usage guidance. No filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, constraints, cost, and chaining instructions completely.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions; description adds valuable context on query syntax (same as YouTube search bar) and default/max for limit.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches YouTube videos by query and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'extract_transcript' by mentioning chaining.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly advises using this tool when user asks to find videos, and to chain with 'extract_transcript' on a result. Also notes it's free and no credits charged.

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