Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• youtube_transcriptA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses the tool's behavioral traits beyond annotations: it tries multiple sources in order, may incur billing via Gemini, uses yt-dlp conditionally, and returns the source for transparency. This adds significant context that annotations alone do not provide, though it does not contradict any annotation.

  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 three sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and packs in essential behavioral details without fluff. Every sentence provides value, from the fallback chain to the output source indication.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  The tool has four parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the key runtime behavior, billing, fallback logic, and return value. It does not describe the exact transcript format, but given the tool's simplicity and strong schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

  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%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds minor nuance about URL shapes and timestamps being only available from caption tracks, but this does not materially improve on the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description opens with 'Get a YouTube video's transcript', a specific verb+resource action that clearly states the tool's primary function. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by detailing the fallback chain and source attribution, making its unique role evident.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context through the fallback chain (captions, Gemini, yt-dlp) and mentions billing implications, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like youtube_transcripts or youtube_transcript_doctor. There is no clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• youtube_transcript_doctorA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is free, makes one unauthenticated request to YouTube, and checks specific configuration items (caption clients, transcription key, yt-dlp). This is valuable beyond annotations, though it does not describe return format or error behavior.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief note on cost and request behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it checks, that it is free, and that it makes one unauthenticated request. It lacks explicit mention of return value shape, but the simple nature of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter information (there is none to add), and the schema already fully documents that no parameters are accepted. No gap exists.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a diagnostic/healthcheck: it checks which caption clients answer, whether a transcription key is configured, and whether yt-dlp is installed. This distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_transcript (which likely fetches transcripts) and youtube_search (which searches videos). The verb 'check' is specific and the resource scope is clear.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies when to use this tool: as a pre-flight check to verify server capabilities before using transcript-related tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that this is a capability probe, not a data-fetching tool. Sibling names reinforce the distinction.

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

• youtube_searchA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Free, no API key' (no auth/access issues), 'Filters combine' (explanatory logic), and 'Returns video ids' (output format). It does not contradict annotations.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and filters, second gives a concrete example, third covers key non-obvious facts (free, no API key) and output destination. No fluff, well front-loaded.

  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?

  Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the core functionality, example usage, cost/auth requirements, and return value. The schema thoroughly documents all parameters, and sibling tools provide context for downstream usage.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by providing a concrete example of how filters combine ('a video about X with over 50,000 views, posted in the last month, from a channel with over 80,000 subscribers'), which illustrates parameter interaction beyond individual schema descriptions.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search YouTube') and resource, then enumerates the filter dimensions (view count, recency, video length, subscriber count). It distinguishes itself from sibling transcript tools by noting it returns video IDs for use with youtube_transcript.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage context: it's a search/filter tool for finding videos, and explicitly mentions passing results to youtube_transcript, providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly say 'use this when X, use alternative when Y,' but the sibling tool names and the stated output make the distinction obvious.

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

• youtube_transcriptsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses several important behaviors beyond annotations: the fallback chain (captions → Gemini → yt-dlp), parallel fetching, partial failure tolerance, and cost implications (billing per video). This is valuable context not provided by the sparse annotations.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds new information: batch capability, fallback chain, parallel behavior, and cost control. No redundant or wasted words.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the complexity of batch processing, the description covers key aspects: fallback order, concurrency, failure handling, and cost. Minor gap: it does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the tool name implies the result. Overall, the description is quite complete.

  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?

  The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (URLs cap, allowPaid default, languages). The description's mention of 'Set allowPaid false to keep the whole batch free' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get transcripts for several videos in one call.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (transcripts), and explicitly contrasts with the single-video tool 'youtube_transcript', making it easy to distinguish.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for multiple videos in one call. It names the alternative single-video tool and explains the behavior difference (default allowPaid false vs. true), helping the agent choose the right tool.

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