yt-consolidado

find_breakout_creators

Discover emerging YouTube creators in a niche by filtering recent channels by subscriber range, region, and channel age to identify breakout subscriber growth.

Instructions

New channels with subscriber velocity — port of youtube-mcp find_breakout_growth_channels.

Layer: Data API. Quota: 101 units.

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": {
      "niche": "<niche>"
    },
    "name": "find_breakout_creators"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`niche`	Yes
`max_results`	No
`region_code`	No	US
`max_subscribers`	No
`min_subscribers`	No
`max_channel_age_months`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the backend layer (Data API) and a concrete quota cost of 101 units, which an agent cannot infer from schema alone, but it says nothing about ordering, whether results are paginated, or what qualifies as 'velocity'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the 'port of youtube-mcp find_breakout_growth_channels' line is developer-facing noise that consumes space without helping invocation. The quota and layer lines do earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with six undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the caller guessing about the subscriber and age thresholds that define 'breakout'. It is under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'New channels' and 'subscriber velocity' vaguely gesture at max_channel_age_months and the subscriber bounds, but niche, region_code, and max_results are entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a recognizable verb+resource: finding new channels with subscriber velocity. It is clear enough to act on, but it offers no differentiation from the sibling find_emerging_channels, which sounds like the same operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling tools that overlap (find_emerging_channels, search_channels). The quota note hints at cost but not at selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server