youtube-mcp

summarize_transcript

Generate timestamped chapter summaries from any YouTube video transcript. Provide a video URL; no API key required.

Instructions

Splits the YouTube video transcript into chunks and creates timestamped chapters. 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": "summarize_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`videoUrl`	Yes	YouTube video URL or video ID
`chunkSeconds`	No	Duration of each chapter/chunk in seconds. Default: 120

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (splitting into chunks and creating timestamped chapters) and a key requirement (no API key). However, it does not detail the return format, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the key operational note about API keys. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It clearly communicates the main function and a distinguishing constraint. However, it could briefly mention the output structure (e.g., a list of chapters with timestamps) to fully close the loop, since no output schema is provided.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage (videoUrl and chunkSeconds). The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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's action and resource: 'Splits the YouTube video transcript into chunks and creates timestamped chapters.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_transcript (which likely retrieves the whole transcript) and search_in_transcript (which searches within it).

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 usage for creating chapter summaries from a transcript but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions 'No API key required,' which is a helpful operational note, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

Deploy Server