YouTube Playlist MCP

Get playlist items

get_playlist_items

Read-only

List the videos in a specified YouTube playlist to inspect its contents without changing anything. Read-only and uses 1 quota unit per 50 videos.

Instructions

List the videos in one of the user's playlists (1 quota unit per 50 videos). Read-only.

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": {
      "playlist_id": "<playlist_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_playlist_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playlist_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. However, the quota cost detail ('1 quota unit per 50 videos') is genuine cost/rate-limit context absent from annotations, and the '/50 videos' phrasing hints at batching. Pagination and token behavior are still unstated.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded sentences with the resource and scope first and the cost note attached. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations already supplied, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, whose playlists, and the cost. Only the ID-derivation step and result ordering/pagination are missing, which are minor for this complexity.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the ID selects one of the user's own playlists, but does not say how to obtain the ID (from list_my_playlists) or whether a URL is accepted, leaving the format burden on the schema's bare pattern.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the videos in one of the user's playlists'), which clearly separates it from siblings like search_videos and preview_playlist. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from scope wording alone.

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?

'in one of the user's playlists' implies a playlist_id is already known, hinting that list_my_playlists is the discovery step, but this is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. preview_playlist or search_videos guidance and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server