Fetches all playlists visible to the signed-in YouTube account as compact normalized records, helping agents review available playlists before create, update, add-to, remove-from, or delete actions.
List account-visible playlists as compact normalized data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It hints at the return shape ('compact normalized data') and listing is inherently a non-mutating read, but it never states read-only behavior, authentication requirements, pagination, or result limits. Some value added, but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope lead. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
For a zero-parameter, non-mutating list tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is listed and the rough shape of the data. It could say more about authentication, pagination, ordering, or the normalization applied, which keeps it from being fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('playlists') with a scope qualifier ('account-visible'), which cleanly separates it from the singular youtube_get_playlist sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 'account-visible' scope implies when this tool applies (enumerate all playlists the account can see) versus fetching one by ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of the alternatives in the sibling set. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.