ytm-runlist-mcp

by gittgi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a copy, fetching tracks, providing running strategy options, health check, listing playlists, reordering in-place, and validating a reorder plan. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: some end with '_tool', some don't ('health' is a single word), and verb phrases vary ('list_youtube_music_playlists' vs 'reorder_original_playlist'). No uniform pattern.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of YouTube Music playlist reordering and running strategy integration. Each tool feels necessary and the count is within the ideal range.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers key operations: list playlists, get tracks, get running strategy options, validate a plan, reorder a playlist, and create a copy. No obvious gaps for the runlist management purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions returning tracks and a specific field, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the structure of the output beyond the one field.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While concise, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter details without losing brevity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description should cover basic usage and output. It lacks explanation of the output format, error handling, and fails to compensate for absent annotations, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not describe the playlist_id parameter at all (no format, source, or validation hints), leaving the agent with only the schema type and name.
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 returns tracks from a playlist, highlighting the inclusion of playlist_item_id for reordering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on reordering operations.
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 implicitly guides usage by noting the relevance of playlist_item_id for reordering, suggesting this tool is a prerequisite before reordering. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns options for presentation, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any other behavioral details. The description is insufficient for a tool with no 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool returns, but does not elaborate on the structure or usage context. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets a basic standard but could be slightly more informative.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by stating the purpose of the output, though it does not elaborate on parameterization since none exists.
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 uses 'Return' as the verb and specifies the resource as 'objective running pace strategy options', clearly indicating what the tool retrieves. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about playlist management and health, but the verb is not highly specific.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so the tool's purpose is unique, but no explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the subset distinction but fails to state other important aspects like creation side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. For a creation tool, more behavioral context is needed.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is necessary, and no information is redundant.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks explanation of the output, required parameter relationships (e.g., source_playlist_id and ids), and potential edge cases like duplicates. The presence of output schema does not fully compensate.
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%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It only clarifies 'ordered_playlist_item_ids' as a subset of source items. Other parameters like title, description, privacy_status, and source_playlist_id are left implicit, relying on names.
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 purpose: 'Create a new playlist copy from a proposed order.' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'reorder_original_playlist' by noting the key difference about subset of items.
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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool versus in-place reorder by highlighting that ordered_playlist_item_ids may be a subset. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination. It only states it lists playlists for the authenticated user, which is minimal.
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 a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with 'List playlists', and contains zero redundant information.
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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately states the core functionality. However, it could mention that it returns all playlists or that authentication is required, but these are implied.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description inherently explains that no parameters are needed. It adds meaning by specifying the scope (owned by authenticated user), which is beyond the empty schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('playlists owned by the authenticated user's YouTube account'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_playlist_tracks_tool which retrieves tracks from a specific playlist.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Sibling tool names suggest related operations, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the original playlist in place (destructive) and that dry_run defaults to true for safety. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, or reversibility, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 very concise (2 sentences). The first states purpose, the second gives critical usage instruction. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
Given 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, how to use 'ordered_playlist_item_ids', or compare with sibling tools. The agent would lack sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description only explains 'dry_run' and 'confirm_modify_original' but not 'playlist_id' or 'ordered_playlist_item_ids'. It does not clarify what 'ordered_playlist_item_ids' expects or how to construct it, leaving significant gaps.
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: 'Reorder the original playlist in place.' This specifies the action (reorder) and the resource (original playlist), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'create_reordered_playlist_copy_tool' which creates a copy instead.
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 provides explicit usage guidelines: it notes 'dry_run defaults to true' and instructs to set 'dry_run=false and confirm_modify_original=true only after the user explicitly confirms modifying the original playlist.' This gives clear safety instructions. However, it lacks explicit comparison to siblings for when to use this vs. 'create_reordered_playlist_copy_tool'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool validates input and returns 'minimal update actions,' but omits details like error handling on invalid input, whether the tool is read-only (likely, but not stated), or any authorization requirements. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).
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 three sentences long, with the main purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds essential information: the core action, a critical constraint, and a note on an optional parameter. There is no redundancy or extra text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description provides a basic understanding. It defines the input constraint for the key parameter and the loose nature of 'running_plan.' However, it does not explain what qualifies as 'minimal update actions,' how failures are communicated, or how this tool relates to sibling tools beyond implication. Adequate but not thorough.
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 description adds meaning to two of three parameters: it specifies that 'ordered_playlist_item_ids must contain every existing playlist item exactly once' and that 'running_plan is optional metadata ... validated only for shape.' The schema has 0% description coverage, so this additional context is valuable. However, 'playlist_id' is not described, leaving a small gap.
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: 'Validate a proposed full in-place reorder and return the minimal update actions.' It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (proposed reorder), and the output is defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reorder_original_playlist' which actually performs the reorder, and 'create_reordered_playlist_copy_tool' which creates a copy.
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 that this tool should be used before applying a reorder, as it 'validate[s]' a proposal. The constraint 'ordered_playlist_item_ids must contain every existing playlist item exactly once' gives a usage condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, such as using 'reorder_original_playlist' directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses exactly what the tool returns (server version and OAuth status) and implies no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers behavior, though it could mention that it is a read-only operation.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is complete enough. It fully informs the agent of what the tool does without needing further details.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, meeting the baseline of 4.
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 verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resources: 'MCP server version' and 'local OAuth status.' It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on playlists and reordering.
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 use for health checks but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ytm-runlist-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gittgi/ytm-runlist-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gittgi/ytm-runlist-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ytm-runlist-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gittgi/ytm-runlist-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gittgi/ytm-runlist-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gittgi/ytm-runlist-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server