Lists videos in a YouTube playlist with pagination, returning a page of results and a cursor to retrieve the next page.
List videos from one YouTube playlist and return the listing. Pass cursor unchanged for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size from 1 to 50. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous call. | |
| playlist | Yes | Playlist id. | |
| timeout_seconds | No | Timeout from 1 to 300 seconds. Defaults to 60. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing pagination semantics and the constraint that the cursor must be passed back unchanged. Missing auth/quota notes keep it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the pagination rule follows immediately. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and 'return the listing' gives only a vague sense of the response shape, which is the main gap. Given rich annotations and full schema coverage, the definition covers everything else needed to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the cursor contract ('unchanged') but adds nothing about playlist identifier format, limit behavior, or timeout.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List videos from one YouTube playlist'), and the scope qualifier 'one YouTube playlist' separates it from channel-level siblings like list_channel_videos and search_channel_videos. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage instruction is pagination-related ('Pass cursor unchanged for the next page'), which is genuinely useful but narrowly scoped. There is no statement of when to choose this over search_channel_videos or list_channel_videos, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.