list_playlistsLists all playlists on a YouTube channel with each playlist's ID, title, privacy status, and video count so you can review and organize channel content.
All playlists on the channel with id, title, privacy and video count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | Which connected channel: channel ID (UC...), @handle or name. Omit to use the default channel. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes by disclosing which fields come back (id, title, privacy, video count), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether private/unlisted playlists are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with the scope and return fields front-loaded and no filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema, annotations covering safety, and the returned fields enumerated in the description, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly. Return-format concerns are partly mitigated by the listed fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'channel' parameter is fully documented in the schema (ID, @handle, name, default fallback). The description's phrase 'on the channel' loosely reinforces the scoping but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource (playlists) and scope (all playlists on the channel) and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, privacy, video count). It is clearly a listing operation, though the verb is only implied and no sibling (e.g. list_playlist_items) is named for contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_playlist_items, get_channel, or create_playlist, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'on the channel'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.