YouTube MCP Server

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 that the tool retrieves information (implying read-only, non-destructive behavior) and lists specific data fields returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds basic context but lacks richer behavioral details.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does and what data it returns, but lacks output format details or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavioral aspects would improve completeness, but it's adequate for a simple read operation.

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%, with the parameter 'playlistId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or usage further). According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get information') and resource ('YouTube playlist'), specifying what information is retrieved (title, description, video count, channel details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_playlist_videos' by focusing on metadata rather than video content, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 description implies usage when playlist metadata is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_playlist_videos' for video lists or 'get_channel_info' for channel data. It mentions what information is included, which hints at context, but lacks when-not scenarios or named alternatives.

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