youtube-mcp

get_transcript

Retrieve YouTube video transcripts with timestamps using a video URL or ID. No API key required.

Instructions

Fetches the transcript (subtitles) of a YouTube video with timestamps. No API key required.

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": {
      "videoUrl": "<videoUrl>"
    },
    "name": "get_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`videoUrl`	Yes	YouTube video URL or video ID (e.g. https://youtube.com/watch?v=xxx or dQw4w9WgXcQ)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No API key required' but fails to mention potential failure conditions (e.g., videos without available subtitles), language limitations, or what exactly is returned regarding timestamps. The description is too thin for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 the action and resource. Every word earns its place; the 'No API key required' is a valuable qualification. No redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description clearly states the core purpose and a key constraint. However, it omits details about return format or behavior when transcription is unavailable, which are relevant for an agent deciding on this tool. The presence of sibling tools makes it more important to clarify scope.

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% (videoUrl is fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and clearly identifies the resource ('transcript (subtitles) of a YouTube video') with a key feature ('with timestamps'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_in_transcript and summarize_transcript by focusing on raw transcript retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies its use case (fetching a transcript) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no naming of sibling tools or guidance on when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server