youtube-kit

by eukosh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Delete Section

delete_section

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a section from your channel's home page. Its playlists and videos are not affected.

Instructions

Delete a section from your channel's home page. Its playlists and videos are not affected.

Quota: 50 units.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`section`	Yes	Section ID, as listed for your channel.
`my_channel`	No	Which of your logged-in channels to work on: UC… ID, @handle or exact title. Omit for the default channel.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`already_gone`	No	Nothing to delete: it didn't exist or was already deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.1Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / kind / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "video",
-  "playlist",
-  "comment",
-  "section"
-]New value: +[
+  "video",
+  "playlist",
+  "comment",
+  "section",
+  "caption"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations by stating that playlists and videos are unaffected and by disclosing the 50-unit quota cost.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes the key non-effect and quota details without unnecessary filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description contains everything an agent needs: the action, scope, non-effects on related content, and quota cost. No critical context is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters—section and my_channel—are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: deleting a section from the channel's home page. It also clarifies an important scope boundary—playlists and videos are not affected—but does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as update_section or add_section.

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?

The description says what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like update_section, add_section, or delete_playlist. Usage is only implied by the verb 'delete' and the object 'section'.

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