YouTube Toolbox

by jikime

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between get_video_transcript and get_video_enhanced_transcript, which could cause confusion as both handle transcripts with the enhanced version being a superset. Other tools like get_video_details and get_channel_details are clearly differentiated, but the transcript duplication weakens clarity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a verb-noun structure (e.g., get_channel_details, search_videos). The naming is predictable and uniform across all eight tools, making it easy for agents to understand and use them without confusion.
Tool Count4/5
With 8 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range for a focused domain like YouTube data retrieval. It feels slightly thin for comprehensive coverage but reasonable for core functionalities such as fetching videos, channels, comments, and transcripts.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers key read operations like getting details, searching, and fetching comments/transcripts, but lacks obvious write or management capabilities (e.g., upload, update, delete) that might be expected in a full YouTube toolbox. This creates notable gaps for agents needing to perform more than retrieval tasks.
Average 3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits 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
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get comments' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires API keys or permissions, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with 5 parameters.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool name and is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details. The output schema helps with return values, but the description alone doesn't provide enough context for effective tool selection and 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions 'video_id' implicitly ('for a YouTube video'), leaving the other 4 parameters (max_results, order, include_replies, page_token) completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a YouTube video'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_video_details' or 'get_video_transcript', but the focus on comments is specific enough to imply differentiation.
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 like 'get_video_details' (which might include comments) or 'search_videos' (which might find videos with certain comments). It also lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid video ID or authentication requirements.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists features (multi-video extraction, filtering, search, segmentation, formatting, metadata inclusion), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid parameters. The feature list is helpful but incomplete for behavioral understanding.
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?
The description is reasonably concise with two sentences and a numbered feature list. However, the first sentence is somewhat redundant ('Advanced transcript extraction tool' and 'Provides rich transcript data' convey similar ideas). The feature list is helpful but could be more efficiently integrated. Overall, it's adequately structured but not optimally front-loaded with the most critical information.
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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides a reasonable feature overview but has significant gaps. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should better explain the tool's scope, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools. For a complex tool with many parameters and no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 10 parameters, the description provides some parameter context by listing features that map to parameters: 'Extract transcripts from multiple videos' (video_ids), 'Filter by time ranges' (start_time, end_time), 'Search within transcripts' (query, case_sensitive), 'Segment transcripts' (segment_method, segment_count), 'Format output' (format), 'Include video metadata' (include_metadata). However, it doesn't explain the language parameter or provide details about parameter values, constraints, or interactions between parameters.
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 the tool's purpose as 'Advanced transcript extraction tool with filtering, search, and multi-video capabilities' and specifies it 'Provides rich transcript data for detailed analysis and processing.' This is specific about the verb (extract) and resource (transcripts from videos) with additional capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from its sibling 'get_video_transcript' - the 'enhanced' aspect is implied but not directly contrasted.
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. While it lists features like filtering, search, and multi-video capabilities, it doesn't indicate when these advanced features are needed versus the simpler 'get_video_transcript' sibling tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific use cases that would help an agent choose between available transcript tools.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches with filtering but doesn't mention key traits like whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or what the output format entails. For a search tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence: 'Search for YouTube videos with advanced filtering options.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but for a tool with many parameters and no annotations, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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%, meaning parameter titles (e.g., 'Query', 'Max Results') lack detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'advanced filtering options' but doesn't explain what parameters like 'order', 'video_duration', or 'region_code' mean or how to use them. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for YouTube videos with advanced filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('YouTube videos'), and scope ('advanced filtering options'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_related_videos' or 'get_trending_videos,' which might also involve video retrieval, so it's not a perfect 5.
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. It mentions 'advanced filtering options' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over siblings like 'get_trending_videos' (for trending content) or 'get_related_videos' (for context-based retrieval). Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage rules.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., subscriber count, videos, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which should define return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on behavior and parameters that could help the agent use it effectively, leaving room for improvement.
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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'channel_id' is needed. It doesn't explain what a channel ID is, where to find it, or format requirements, resulting in minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a YouTube channel', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_video_details' or 'get_video_enhanced_transcript', which also retrieve YouTube content information, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific scope.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_video_details' for video-specific data or 'search_videos' for broader searches, leaving the agent without context for tool selection. There's no indication of prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'related' means algorithmically (e.g., based on YouTube's recommendations). This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it adequate only for simple cases where the agent can rely on the structured fields.
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 description mentions 'a specific YouTube video' which hints at the video_id parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond this. It doesn't address max_results or provide context like valid ranges or defaults. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate more but only adds marginal value, warranting a baseline score.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('videos related to a specific YouTube video'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_video_details or search_videos by focusing on related content rather than direct video information or broad searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_trending_videos, which might also return videos, leaving slight ambiguity.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid video ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like search_videos for broader queries or get_video_details for metadata. This leaves the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves trending videos by region but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves external API calls.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but the lack of behavioral details and incomplete parameter semantics leaves room for improvement.
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 description mentions 'by region,' which aligns with the 'region_code' parameter, adding some context beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, it doesn't fully explain 'max_results' or provide format details for 'region_code,' leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
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 the action ('Get trending videos') and resource ('on YouTube by region'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_videos' or 'get_related_videos', which could also retrieve videos in some context.
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. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to siblings like 'search_videos' for general queries or 'get_ideo_details' for specific videos, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., title, duration, view count), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information, achieving ideal conciseness.
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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which should define return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error cases. For a basic read tool, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.
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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a 'video_id' for a YouTube video but doesn't clarify format (e.g., YouTube URL vs. ID string), validation, or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the schema property name, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter semantics.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a YouTube video'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_video_comments' or 'get_video_transcript' by focusing on general video metadata rather than specific aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_video_enhanced_transcript' which might also provide detailed information, keeping it from a perfect score.
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. With siblings like 'get_related_videos', 'get_trending_videos', and 'search_videos', there's no indication that this is for retrieving metadata of a specific known video ID versus browsing or searching. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context implied at best.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with an output schema, some context is implied, but key behavioral traits are missing.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines leaves gaps in completeness.
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 description mentions 'transcript/captions' and 'YouTube video', which loosely relates to the 'video_id' parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates by hinting at the resource, but does not explain parameter roles or the 'language' parameter's purpose.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('transcript/captions for a YouTube video'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_video_enhanced_transcript', which could cause confusion about when to use each one.
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, such as 'get_video_enhanced_transcript' or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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:

[![py-mcp-youtube-toolbox MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jikime/py-mcp-youtube-toolbox/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jikime/py-mcp-youtube-toolbox)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![py-mcp-youtube-toolbox MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jikime/py-mcp-youtube-toolbox/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jikime/py-mcp-youtube-toolbox)

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/jikime/py-mcp-youtube-toolbox'

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