YouTube Transcript 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't reveal important behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, if there's pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when the channel URL is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list structure, video details included), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to fully understand its 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (channel URL format and max videos with constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid URLs or clarification on what 'video list' includes. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 video list') and target resource ('from a YouTube channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'youtube_get_playlist_videos' or 'youtube_get_channel_video_urls', which likely retrieve similar content through different mechanisms or formats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving YouTube content (e.g., 'youtube_get_channel_transcripts', 'youtube_get_playlist_videos'), there's no indication of whether this is the preferred method for video lists, what distinguishes it from similar tools, or any prerequisites for use.

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