mcp-youtube
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target a distinct resource+action clearly (e.g., list-playlists vs. get-playlist vs. create-playlist). A few pairs like list-videos and list-activities, or list-comments and list-comment-threads, could cause initial confusion but their descriptions differentiate them well. Overall, boundaries are clear despite the large surface.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent lowercase kebab-case verb-noun pattern (e.g., list-channels, create-comment-thread, upload-caption). Even multi-word actions like set-comment-moderation-status adhere to the same scheme. The pattern is predictable and aids discoverability.
Tool Count3/552 tools is heavy, exceeding the typical 'too many' threshold. However, the server aims to cover the entire YouTube Data API surface, and most tools map to distinct endpoints or logical operations. Some tools (e.g., list-i18n-languages, list-membership-levels) feel peripheral, but overall the size is defensible.
Completeness3/5CRUD/Lifecycle coverage is strong for videos, playlists, comments, captions, and channel sections. Notable gaps include a dedicated get-channel tool for fetching arbitrary channel metadata (only list-channels for own channel), and no way to fetch a playlist's metadata without owning it via list-playlists. Some resources like subscriptions and memberships lack full lifecycle support but list/action tools cover core needs.
Average 4/5 across 52 of 52 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 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 MIT License.
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.jsonto 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the 50 quota unit cost, which is useful, but omits other important behaviors such as what the response contains, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. This is limited transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical operational detail (quota cost). No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with a well-documented schema, the description provides the core purpose and cost, but lacks information about the return value or post-creation behavior. Given there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns, which is omitted. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with clear descriptions for title, description, and privacyStatus. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the quota cost, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new playlist' is a clear, specific verb+resource statement that directly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update-playlist, delete-playlist, and list-playlists. It unambiguously identifies the tool's primary action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, target users, or scenarios where create-playlist is preferred. The description does not help the agent decide between this and other playlist-related 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a quota cost and that it reads, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, auth requirements, or error conditions despite having pageToken and maxResults parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a relevant operational detail (quota cost). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers parameter semantics, and the description adds cost and purpose, but there is no output schema and no mention of return value shape or pagination behavior. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described (playlistId, maxResults, pageToken). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a playlist's items/contents, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-playlists, which lists playlists themselves, and playlist modification tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'Read a playlist's items/contents' and mentions cost; no when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are provided.
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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the quota cost, which is useful, but fails to disclose idempotency, handling of duplicate subscriptions, authentication requirements, or any side effects beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the cost. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so extensive description is not required. However, the description lacks context about side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is minimally sufficient but not fully complete for an agent encountering the tool cold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a clear description of channelId, and the tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema states. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, as no further parameter meaning is introduced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Subscribe to a channel' uses a specific verb and resource, unambiguously identifying the action. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'unsubscribe' and 'list-subscriptions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It omits any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between subscribing and other related actions like listing or unsubscribing.
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 carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait—costing 200 quota units—which is absent from the schema. However, it omits other behavioral details such as file overwrite behavior, permission requirements, and return value, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise two-clause sentence with all necessary core information front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the action and a key cost implication, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description provides only the essential action and cost. Missing contextual details include how to obtain a captionId, expected return behavior, and potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files). This is not fully complete for a tool with these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (captionId, outputPath, format, language) are already well documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing that outputPath is a local file path; no new meaning is added for format or language.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Download a caption track') with a clear destination ('to a local file path'). It also includes a cost factor, making it distinct from sibling caption tools like list-captions, upload-caption, update-caption, and delete-caption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as first calling list-captions to obtain a captionId. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. The cost statement is informational but does not clarify usage context.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only discloses the 50-quota-unit cost, but omits side effects such as whether the old image is destroyed, whether replacement is reversible, or any permission requirements. 'Replace' implies mutation but lacks detail, making this insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence stating the action, followed by a brief note on the quota cost. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter operation, the description conveys the core purpose and cost, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., owning the playlist), behavior on failure, or what the response contains. With no output schema or annotations, this is a minimal but barely adequate completion for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters described ('Absolute local path to the replacement image file' and 'Playlist image ID'). The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action with a verb and resource: 'Replace a playlist cover image's file.' This distinguishes it from siblings like upload-playlist-image (creating/adding) and delete-playlist-image (removing), and the word 'replace' signals updating an existing image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (replacing an existing playlist cover image's file) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives like upload-playlist-image for new images or note when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
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 does mention the quota cost, which is useful, and implies mutation through 'move', but it omits important details such as authorization requirements, side effects on other playlist items, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, information-dense sentences: one stating the purpose and one noting the quota cost. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and a key operational detail (quota cost), but it lacks guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, and expected behavior. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, a bit more context, such as note that item positions shift after reordering, would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; for example, it doesn't clarify why videoId is required or how position interacts with other items. Thus, the description provides no value beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource 'playlist item' with the action 'to a new position (reorder)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-playlist, which likely focuses on updating playlist metadata rather than item order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for reordering playlist items but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The mention of 'Costs 50 quota units' is an operational constraint rather than a usage guideline, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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?
The description discloses the quota cost per video ('Costs 50 quota units per video') and the cardinality ('one or more'), adding some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not cover other important aspects like required permissions, error behavior, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and then state the cost. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter write operation, the description covers the core action and the quota detail. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could have mentioned potential side effects or error scenarios, but it is still reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (playlistId and videoIds) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add one or more videos to a playlist') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'remove-from-playlist' and 'create-playlist'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'remove-from-playlist' or 'update-playlist-item'. It only mentions the quota cost, which is a cost consideration, not a usage guideline.
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 adds the behavioral detail that each call costs 1 quota unit, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as return format, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it). This is a partial disclosure with some gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. It states the core function and the quota cost, both earning their place. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and quota cost. It falls short on usage guidance and return-value details, but given the simplicity and high schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'parent' as 'Playlist ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('cover images for a playlist'), distinguishing it from other list tools like list-playlists and image-specific operations like upload/update/delete. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. While the purpose is implied by the name, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like list-playlists or get-playlist.
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?
The description discloses a quota cost (1 quota unit per call) and a limit of 50 videos, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid/missing IDs. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes essential limiting information (50 videos, quota cost) efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: the action, the input constraint, and the kind of data returned. It lacks explicit return structure but the high-level summary is adequate for an agent to select the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter videoIds is already well-described in the schema with 'Video IDs', and the schema provides constraints (maxItems 50). The description adds 'by ID' and 'up to 50' but these are redundant with schema. No additional meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to fetch metadata, status, and statistics for up to 50 videos by ID. The verb 'Fetch' plus the resource 'videos' differentiates it from sibling tools like list-channels or update-video.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or list-channels. It implies usage for known video IDs but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait (costs 1 quota unit per call), which is useful rate-limit context. However, it doesn't mention pagination, return format, or potential limits beyond what schema infers. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The quota note adds value without bloat. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity with full schema coverage and pagination parameters, but no output schema exists. The description doesn't explain return values or pagination behavior beyond what schema hints. It's minimally complete but lacks rich context like typical usage scenarios or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (pageToken, maxResults) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists the authenticated user's playlists, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list-channels (lists channels) and get-playlist (gets a single playlist).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (to list the user's playlists) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-playlist or create-playlist. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
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 mentions 'Costs 50 quota units,' which is a useful cost detail, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, whether the rating is user-specific, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is sparse for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences: 'Like, dislike, or clear your rating on a video. Costs 50 quota units.' Every word serves a purpose, and the core action is front-loaded. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and even includes the quota cost. However, since there are no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about return values, error conditions, and permission requirements. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by using 'clear your rating' to explain the 'none' enum value, and 'your rating' clarifies that the rating belongs to the authenticated user. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'Rating to apply'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Like, dislike, or clear your rating on a video.' This uses a specific verb (rate) and resource (video), and the three actions map directly to the enum values. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get-video-rating or update-video because it focuses on setting the viewer's rating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to rate a video, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get-video-rating (to read) or update-video (to edit metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.
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 carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds a significant cost warning (100 quota units) that is not in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination, return format, or error scenarios, which are relevant for a search tool without an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers the cost warning. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no superfluous words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover essential context. It provides the purpose and a cost warning, but omits details about return format, pagination, or default sorting behavior. While search is fairly simple, the absence of output information leaves some gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool meets its needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters (type, query, maxResults), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'videos, channels, or playlists' maps to the type enum, but this is already captured in the schema. There is no extra semantic detail about query syntax or result interpretation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches YouTube for videos, channels, or playlists, which is a specific verb-resource-entity combination. It effectively distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like list-videos, list-channels, and list-playlists, which are likely for retrieving known resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a cost warning ('Costs 100 quota units per call — use sparingly'), which gives some usage guidance by advising caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving the selection criteria partly implicit.
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 the full burden. It discloses the 50-quota-unit cost and the local file requirement, which is useful context. However, it does not mention prerequisites like video ownership, irreversibility, or response behavior, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences state the action and cost with zero wasted words. The description is concise and scannable, covering all essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core operation and cost, but with no output schema or annotations, it omits details about return behavior, permissions, and conflict with existing thumbnails. For a simple set operation this is adequate but not thorough, especially given the absence of explicit usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (Video ID and Absolute local path), so the description adds little beyond restating the local file source. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enrich parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Upload and set') and resource ('video's custom thumbnail'), and adds 'from a local image file,' which clearly distinguishes it from related tools like update-video or set-watermark. It leaves no doubt about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (setting a video thumbnail) and even mentions the quota cost, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are named, so an agent must infer usage from the purpose.
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 the burden. It discloses the quota cost and the action of uploading from a local file, but it does not mention whether an existing watermark is replaced, any permission requirements, or side effects. This is a partial disclosure but leaves key behavioral traits unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences. The first states the action and resource, and the second provides a cost note. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the core function and cost but does not explain overwrite behavior, prerequisites (e.g., ownership), or what constitutes successful completion. For a 5-parameter tool with 2 required, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aside from reinforcing that the file is a local image for 'filePath'. No additional clarity on 'offsetMs', 'position', or 'durationMs' is offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool uploads and sets a channel's video watermark from a local image file. It uses a specific verb ('upload and set') and resource ('channel's video watermark'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'unset-watermark' and other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used to set a watermark, especially given the sibling 'unset-watermark' exists, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The quota cost hint provides some context but not clear when/when-not guidance.
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?
The description discloses the quota cost of 50 units and the constraint that the parent must be an existing top-level comment, but it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, side effects, or failure behavior. With no annotations to fall back on, this is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler; the key action and cost are both stated directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers what it does, the cost, and the target constraint. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke, though it could mention side effects or response behavior if applicable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both text and parentId, so the description needs no additional parameter guidance. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Reply to an existing top-level comment'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create-comment-thread and update-comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage by specifying the target as an existing top-level comment, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 the burden. It discloses the 50 quota unit cost, which is valuable operational context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Post a new top-level comment') and includes the quota cost with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the agent can expect in return and any preconditions. It reveals quota cost and top-level semantics but omits return value details, error conditions, and authorization prerequisites. For a simple creation tool, this is moderately complete but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (text, videoId, channelId). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify that exactly one of videoId or channelId is required, though it says 'or'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Post a new top-level comment on a video or channel.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like reply-to-comment (which creates replies) and list-comment-threads (which lists threads).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'top-level comment' implies this tool starts a new thread, contrasting with reply-to-comment. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose a video vs. channel, nor explicitly mention alternatives for replies or listing.
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 must carry the full burden. It adds the cost of 50 quota units, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any pagination behavior. The cost is a plus, but other transparency gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and the quota cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, no nested objects), but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the listing returns (e.g., caption track metadata, languages, IDs). For a list operation, specifying the return value would enhance completeness, but the description is not misleading or inadequate for the task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the only parameter videoId described as 'Video ID'. The description adds no new meaning beyond reinforcing that the operation applies to a video. With such high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('caption tracks'), and the scope ('for a video'). It uses the specific verb 'list', which aligns with the tool name, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload-caption, download-caption, and delete-caption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to enumerate caption tracks for a given video. It doesn't explicitly state when to use an alternative, but the clear scope and naming make the context evident. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
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, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the quota cost per call, which is helpful, but does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or any error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint (quota cost) without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description could benefit from mentioning that the results are paginated via pageToken and maxResults. It currently lacks this context, making it slightly incomplete for agents needing to plan multi-call operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The term 'top-level comment' is already included in the schema's parentId description, so no additional value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('replies under a top-level comment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-comment-threads. The phrase 'top-level comment' implies a specific scope, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get replies under a top-level comment) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The quota cost is a useful usage consideration, but explicit guidance on when not to use it is missing.
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 the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail (quota cost per call) and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return behavior, pagination semantics, or any implicit constraints such as requiring exactly one of videoId or channelId.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and quota impact efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, and the description is quite minimal. It omits the practical requirement that exactly one of videoId or channelId should be provided (though not enforced by the schema), and it does not describe the response structure or pagination behavior. Still, for a simple read-only list tool, the purpose is adequately covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds little beyond stating the resource scope ('video or channel'), which aligns with the videoId and channelId parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top-level comment threads for a video or channel'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling list-comments (which likely handles replies) and other tools. It states exactly what scope is covered.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the applicable contexts ('for a video or channel') and mentions the quota cost, providing useful usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this over similar listing tools.
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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation costs 50 quota units and requires confirm: true, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, cost, and confirm requirement. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning side effects or confirmation of successful removal, so it falls short of fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of value by emphasizing that confirm must be true, which reinforces the schema's 'default: false' and 'Must be true to actually remove'. However, it does not add additional meaning to channelId beyond the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a channel's video watermark' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool set-watermark. It directly states the action and target, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a watermark) and includes important guidance about the confirm parameter needing to be true and the quota cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool set-watermark makes the contrast obvious.
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 the full burden. It discloses a specific behavioral trait—'Costs 400 quota units'—and clarifies the file must be local. However, it omits other important context such as permissions required, whether the upload is irreversible, or what the response (e.g., a track ID) would be. This is partial disclosure, not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and key constraints, with no filler or redundancy. Every element earns its place, and the quota cost is concise and useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and one major behavioral detail (quota cost), but does not explain expected return values, prerequisites (e.g., video existence), or error scenarios. Given its complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about supported file formats (SRT/VTT/SBV/TTML) and that the file is local, which slightly enriches filePath but does not materially alter understanding of the other parameters. The schema already does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload a new caption track'), the resource ('caption track'), and the source ('from a local file'), listing supported formats. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list-captions, update-caption, download-caption, and delete-caption by specifying it creates a new track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this when uploading a new caption track from a local file, with supported formats and quota cost. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use update-caption for existing tracks), but the 'new' keyword implies the use case. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.
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 carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the useful context of 'Costs 50 quota units', but does not disclose whether the upload overwrites an existing cover image, file format constraints, or required permissions. This is a partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that front-load the action and then provide the quota cost. There is no redundant text or filler, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is structurally simple (two required params, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers the core action and cost, but lacks details on return value, file type/size limits, and overwrite behavior. These gaps leave moderate incompleteness for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (playlistId and filePath) with 100% coverage. The description's 'from a local file' merely reinforces the filePath parameter without adding new semantic meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (upload), the target (cover image for a playlist), and the source (from a local file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-playlist-images, update-playlist-image, and delete-playlist-image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case of uploading a local file as a playlist cover but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It provides clear context but no exclusions.
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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable traits (resumable, 1600 quota units) but does not mention return value, error behavior, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the most critical cost context. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is useful but not fully complete for a complex upload tool with no output schema and no annotations. It highlights cost and resumability but omits return values, side effects, and error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents all six parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('a video from a local file path'), plus the method ('via resumable upload'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like upload-caption and set-thumbnail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It conveys when to use this tool (for local file uploads) and provides a strong contextual signal (most expensive, 16% of daily budget) implying use sparingly. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that creation costs 50 quota units, which is a useful constraint, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects (e.g., reordering of sections), or response format. This is a minimal but non-empty disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and includes one contextual clarification ('homepage shelf') plus the cost. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complete parameter schema and the straightforward nature of a create operation, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema and the CRUD simplicity make this acceptable. The quota cost adds valuable context for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it does not raise the baseline. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('channel section') with an explanatory parenthetical ('homepage shelf'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-channel-sections, update-channel-section, and delete-channel-section.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Create a new channel section' gives clear context for when to use the tool: to add a new section. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the CRUD nature and sibling set make the intended use obvious.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively discloses irreversibility ('Permanently delete'), a concrete cost ('Costs 50 quota units'), and a required safeguard ('Requires confirm: true'), which are useful non-obvious traits. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the key destructive aspects are well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, permanence, quota cost, and confirmation requirement without any filler. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive operation with only two parameters, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, the irreversible nature, the quota cost, and the confirmation guard. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and return behavior is standard for delete operations. The information provided is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning by restating the confirm requirement, but it does not introduce any new details about playlistId format or additional semantic constraints beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Permanently delete an entire playlist,' which identifies both the action (delete) and the target (playlist). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove-from-playlist or clean-playlist that operate on individual items or partial contents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—whenever you need to delete a whole playlist—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. Sibling tools like remove-from-playlist are not referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds quota cost and a 50-video batch limit, but does not mention error handling, response shape, or how unrated videos are represented. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core function, then adds quota cost. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, the rating values (like/dislike/none), the batch limit, and quota cost. It does not detail response structure or auth requirements, but those are partially inferred from 'authenticated user's'. Overall, it is quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only 'Video IDs' with min/max constraints, while the description adds semantic meaning by clarifying these are the videos for which the authenticated user's rating is retrieved. It reinforces the 50-video limit already present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves the authenticated user's rating (like/dislike/none) for up to 50 videos. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'authenticated user's rating' distinguishes it from write-focused siblings like 'rate-video'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for reading the current user's own ratings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'rate-video' or 'list-videos'. No exclusions or alternative references are 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 the full burden. It discloses the quota cost (1 unit per call), which is a valuable behavioral trait, and the default-to-own-channel behavior. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits beyond the quota cost, so it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, includes examples and cost. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, default behavior, and cost. It's a simple list tool with optional parameters that are all documented. No output schema exists, but the examples provide a sense of the return content. It's slightly thin on response structure, but the context signals (3 optional params, no nested objects) indicate low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what's in the schema; the channelId default behavior is already in the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('recent channel activity') and gives examples of activity types. It also explains the channelId behavior, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list-channels or list-videos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to omit channelId (defaults to authenticated user's channel) and when to specify a channel, providing clear context for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct from sibling tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a quota cost (1 quota unit per call) and a specific error condition (403 unless the channel is an active YPP member with memberships enabled). This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not describe return format or pagination, but those are partially inferable from the schema parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds quota and gating information. Both sentences are relevant and directly useful. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers purpose, quota, and a major error condition. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but that is not required. It could be slightly more explicit about how it relates to list-membership-levels, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description mentions the resource but does not elaborate on parameter-specific nuances beyond what the schema already says. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the target resource ('members of your channel's memberships program'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-channels and list-membership-levels. The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use the tool (for channels with memberships enabled) and includes a monetization gating condition, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied by the purpose rather than stated as guidance.
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, the description carries the full burden. It adds the quota cost of 1 unit per call and implies read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error conditions, auth requirements beyond 'authenticated user', or pagination behavior. The quota note is useful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and includes a meaningful quota detail, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and quota cost. It does not describe return format, but the schema covers pagination, and the lack of an output schema lowers the burden. The description is adequate for this simple context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both pageToken and maxResults are described). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the authenticated user's channel subscriptions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list-channels' (channel info) and 'subscribe' (creating a subscription).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context (authenticated user's subscriptions) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or exclusion cases. The presence of 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' siblings makes the use case obvious, but explicit guidance is lacking.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the quota cost ('Costs 1 quota unit per call') and the 'assignable' nature of the categories, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention response format, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, scope, and a key cost detail efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but does not specify the return structure, pagination, or sorting. Given the low complexity, the missing details are unlikely to hinder correct invocation, but the description could be slightly more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%—regionCode is fully documented with a clear description and default value. The description's phrase 'for a region' loosely references the parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List assignable video categories for a region' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-channels and list-videos. The scope ('for a region') aligns with the regionCode parameter, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need video categories for a region—but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No competing category-listing tool exists among siblings, but the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the quota cost and the need for confirmation, but the confirmation requirement is already present in the input schema. Beyond the cost, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or reversibility. This adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using a single sentence with three clear clauses: purpose, cost, and confirmation requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple unsubscribe tool with fully described parameters, the description provides the essential context: purpose, quota cost, and the confirmation gate. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but these are less critical given the schema's completeness. Overall, it is nearly complete for this straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely repeats the confirm requirement. The subscriptionId parameter is well-described in the schema, so the description's contribution is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Unsubscribe from a channel.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list-subscriptions'. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to unsubscribe) and includes critical usage constraints: 'Costs 50 quota units' and 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which prevents a 5, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context that the operation costs 450 quota units and that the file re-upload is optional, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing content, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible. This is a moderate level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that convey the primary function and the quota cost. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key information is front-loaded. This is an efficient and well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and a key operational detail (quota cost). It does not explain prerequisites like the caption track needing to exist, but 'update' implies that. The lack of return-value explanation is acceptable given no output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics by explicitly noting that re-uploading is optional, which aligns with filePath not being required. It does not add deeper meaning about how isDraft and filePath interact, but the schema already handles parameter definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating a caption track's draft status and optionally re-uploading its file. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('caption track'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload-caption (which uploads new captions) and delete-caption (which deletes captions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to modify a caption track's draft status or replace its content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use upload-caption for new captions' or 'don't use this for read-only operations,' so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses full-replace semantics, the read-before-write safeguard, and a quota unit cost. These details go beyond the schema and give the agent insight into side effects and resource consumption, though it doesn't cover authorization failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and affected fields; the second delivers the critical behavioral warning and quota cost. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a straightforward metadata update with 7 simple string parameters, and the description covers purpose, behavior, and cost. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap for a write operation. Missing details like permission requirements are somewhat covered by "your channel," so completeness is high but not maximal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with each parameter described as "unchanged if omitted," so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description's field list adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Update your channel's branding metadata" followed by a concrete list of fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-video or update-playlist by naming the target resource and the exact data being modified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the context of use (channel branding changes) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references. It does not say when to use this over related update tools or mention prerequisites such as channel ownership. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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?
The description discloses the quota cost (50 units) and the ownership constraint, which are useful behavioral details beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or expected response format, leaving significant transparency gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core action, ownership, and cost. The lack of output schema and annotations is partially compensated, but it omits success/failure behavior and return values, leaving some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (comment ID and new text). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Edit the text of a comment you posted,' specifying the action (edit), resource (comment text), and ownership constraint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-comment or set-comment-moderation-status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'you posted' implies the tool is limited to editing one's own comments, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools for editing others' comments or performing other actions, so it falls short of explicit alternatives.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosure. It states the full-replace semantics on snippet/status parts, the read-before-write behavior to preserve omitted fields, and the 50 quota unit cost. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention auth prerequisites or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action and affected fields, the second explains the replace semantics and quota cost. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant or filler text. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and concisely structures additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key behavioral aspects (read-modify-write, full-replace, quota cost) and clarifies that omitted fields retain their current values. It doesn't describe return values, but for a mutation tool this is less critical. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could specify what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter (e.g., 'New title (unchanged if omitted)'). The description partially overlaps by listing fields and adds the key behavioral note about full-replace, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Per the baseline rule, this warrants a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a video') and enumerates the specific fields (title, description, category, tags, privacy, status flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload-video or update-playlist, making the tool's primary purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for updating video metadata and notes the full-replace/read-first behavior, which hints at when to use it (when you need to change fields without overwriting omitted ones). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use set-thumbnail for thumbnails'), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default channel behavior and the quota cost per call, which goes beyond the bare operation. It could mention return format, but for a simple list operation this is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a helpful clarification in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers its core purpose and parameter behavior, but without an output schema, it omits return format or pagination details. This is a gap for an AI agent, though the cost and default behavior partially compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter channelId, including its default behavior. The description reiterates this information without adding new semantic detail, so it neither elevates nor diminishes the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'channel sections', with a parenthetical explanation of what channel sections are and a definition of the default behavior when channelId is omitted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-channel-section or update-channel-section.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by explaining that omitting channelId targets the authenticated user's channel and by mentioning the quota cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb 'list' and the context of sibling tools make the usage clear.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the full-replace behavior and the safety mechanism of reading first to preserve omitted fields, which is crucial for an agent to know. It also discloses the quota cost (50 units). However, it doesn't mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects like how to clear a field.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, behavioral caveat, and cost. There is zero fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, and cost, but with no output schema or annotations, it leaves out return value expectations and error/permission context. For a mutation tool with one required parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'reads the current section first so omitted fields aren't blanked' reinforces what each parameter description already says ('unchanged if omitted'), but doesn't add new parameter-level semantics. It doesn't explain types or formats beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing channel section.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (channel section), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create-channel-section and delete-channel-section. The additional detail about full-replace on snippet/contentDetails further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use it (updating existing channel sections) and explains the read-first behavior to handle partial updates. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over create/delete/list operations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent, costs quota, and requires an explicit confirmation flag. These are critical behavioral traits beyond what the input schema states. It doesn't discuss side effects or prerequisites, but the key destructive nature is clearly communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with all essential information front-loaded. It avoids redundant phrasing and earns its place by covering purpose, cost, and a critical parameter requirement in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: permanent effect, cost, and confirmation requirement. It doesn't mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described. The description reiterates the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a channel section.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-channel-section, update-channel-section, and list-channel-sections. The word 'permanently' adds important scope about the operation's effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for use: this tool deletes a channel section, costs 50 quota units, and requires confirm=true. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the practical guidance about confirmation and cost is useful. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for deletion tasks.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: deletion is permanent ('Permanently'), there is a quota cost ('Costs 50 quota units'), and a confirmation safeguard exists ('Requires confirm: true'). It does not cover error handling or permissions, but the most critical destructive traits are addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost and safety conditions. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and a key prerequisite. It is brief but sufficient for typical use, though it omits secondary details such as error behavior or idempotency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the confirmation requirement, though it does emphasize it verbally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'delete' with a clear resource 'comment' and adds 'Permanently' to convey irreversibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling comment tools like 'update-comment' and 'list-comments' by naming the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context that confirmation is required ('Requires confirm: true'), which is a necessary usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, missing the top tier of explicit when/when-not guidance.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: permanent deletion, quota cost, and the confirm guard. This goes well beyond the schema and covers the most safety-relevant aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the critical side effects. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential behavioral context: permanence, quota cost, and the confirmation requirement. It does not mention return values, but that is less critical here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The confirm requirement is redundantly stated, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('playlist cover image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-playlist or delete-comment. The permanence note adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the action and an explicit precondition ('Requires confirm: true') plus a quota cost, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: permanent deletion, a quota cost of 50 units, and the need for confirm=true. It does not outline permissions or side effects but covers the essentials for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences convey purpose, cost, and requirement without redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, ownership constraint, cost, and confirmation. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but these are not critical for such a tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents both parameters (videoId and confirm) with descriptions. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'delete', identifies the resource ('video'), and adds scope ('you own'), distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools like delete-comment or delete-playlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states the tool is for deleting videos you own, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the 'you own' constraint implies exclusions.
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 that the tool 'Costs 1 quota unit per call,' which is useful behavioral information beyond the schema. Since no annotations are provided, this adds some transparency about cost/rate implications, though it does not describe return format or any other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that provides the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail (quota cost). Every word contributes to understanding; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its core function. However, it does not describe the format or contents of the returned language list, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on the operation rather than inventing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('the application languages supported by YouTube'), making the purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool list-i18n-regions by specifying 'application languages' rather than regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to list supported application languages) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The mention of quota cost is a partial usage consideration but not a substitute for usage guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and a quota cost ('1 quota unit per call'), which is useful. However, it omits auth requirements and any mention of pagination or output format, though the zero-parameter nature reduces risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two concise sentences with no filler. It states the purpose and the cost, both essential, and nothing more.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is trivial (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and a key cost detail. It is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, though it does not differentiate from sibling list tools or describe the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level meaning because there are none to describe, but this is not a deficiency given the schema covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List the content regions supported by YouTube' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list-i18n-languages by focusing on regions rather than languages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing YouTube's supported content regions, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-i18n-languages or list-video-categories. No alternative tools are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: permanence ('Permanently'), cost ('50 quota units per item'), and the mandatory confirmation flag ('Requires confirm: true'). This goes beyond typical mutation descriptions, though it omits what happens on invalid IDs or if confirm is false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second and third add critical constraints. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, cost, and confirmation for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the core operational context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by linking 'per item' cost to the array parameter and emphasizing that 'confirm: true' is required for the operation to execute, which is not fully explicit in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Permanently remove specific items from a playlist by playlist-item ID' — a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. This clearly distinguishes from playlist creation, update, or clean operations among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'remove' and the context 'from a playlist,' but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given (e.g., 'use clean-playlist for bulk removal'). The confirmation requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the 50-quota-unit cost and the irreversible outward nature of the action, which are critical behavioral traits. It does not mention response behavior or permissions, but the key consequences are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and critical caveats. Every word earns its place—no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. It doesn't explain response or edge cases, but for a report action with 6 well-documented parameters, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds emphasis on confirm being required but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Report a video to YouTube') with a specific resource ('video') and purpose ('for abuse/policy violation'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this from the related sibling 'list-video-abuse-report-reasons'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool, including the prerequisite that confirm must be true and that it is an irreversible outward action. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the mention of fetching reasonId via the sibling tool gives implicit guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the dry-run default, that passing dryRun: false deletes, and provides quota cost context (1 unit/page, 50 units per item). It also explicitly mentions the types of items removed, making the destructive nature clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise two-sentence structure that front-loads the core action and scope, then provides crucial behavioral defaults. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, dry-run default, deletion thresholds, and quota implications. It does not detail the plan's return structure, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by mapping the removal categories to parameters (tombstones, duplicates, channel videos), clarifying the dryRun effect, and providing quota details not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('Scan', 'plan removal') and resources ('playlist', 'tombstones', 'duplicates', 'videos from given channels'). It distinguishes itself from CRUD siblings by focusing on bulk playlist cleanup with a dry-run workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the appropriate use case by describing the scanning and removal capabilities, and explains the dry-run vs. actual deletion behavior. It does not explicitly cite alternatives like remove-from-playlist or list exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the irreversible ('permanently') nature, the quota cost (50 units), and the requirement for confirmation (confirm: true). These are critical behavioral traits beyond what the schema alone provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using three short sentences that each deliver distinct information: purpose, quota cost, and confirmation requirement. There is zero waste, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, irreversibility, quota cost, and confirm requirement. It lacks explicit information about return values or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema, this is not a significant gap. A 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (confirm and captionId), and the description's mention of 'Requires confirm: true' essentially repeats the schema's description. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('caption track'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling caption tools like list-captions, upload-caption, and update-caption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to delete a caption track) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a 50-quota cost, requires confirm: true, and explains that 'rejected' hides comments from public view, which is an important side effect. It stops short of describing error cases or idempotency, but the key operational traits are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the action, status options, a migration note, quota cost, and the confirm requirement—all in front-loaded, compact prose. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential facts: purpose, statuses, cost, confirmation, and a legacy replacement hint. It does not discuss permissions or response bodies, but for a state-setting action it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds meaning by noting the tool handles one or more comments (array), enumerates the moderation status enum values, and explicitly calls out the confirm flag's necessity. This helps the agent reason about required inputs beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the moderation status of one or more comments on your videos.' It enumerates the valid statuses (publish, hold for review, reject) and clarifies the action's scope (moderation, not deletion or editing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-comment and update-comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when moderating comments) and provides a meaningful reference to the removed markAsSpam method, which helps agents map legacy intent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context and the specific status vocabulary make the use case clear.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned fields (snippet, statistics, status) and the quota cost (1 unit per call), which are valuable behavioral details. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' strongly implies it, and the quota note is a meaningful addition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the action, scope, return fields, and quota cost. No unnecessary words or repetition, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear scope), the description covers everything essential: what it lists, whose channels, what data is returned, and cost. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the authenticated user's own channel(s) and specifies the returned data types (snippet, statistics, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-playlists or list-videos, making the purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for retrieving the authenticated user's own channels. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the scoping to 'own channel(s)' implies when to use it, and sibling tools like list-channel-sections cover different resources, so the usage is clear enough.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the quota cost ('1 quota unit per call'), which is a concrete behavioral detail. The verb 'List' also implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state safety or side-effect absence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add the cost warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what is listed (reason IDs), why (accepted by report-video-abuse), and its cost. No additional context is required for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output (reason IDs) rather than parameters, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'reason IDs accepted by report-video-abuse', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing report-video-abuse, making its role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used when you need valid reason IDs before calling report-video-abuse. It provides clear context for use but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, though none are likely needed for this niche tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the non-obvious 'full-replace' behavior, the read-before-write mechanism that prevents field blanking, and the quota cost of 50 units. These are valuable behavioral insights beyond what the schema or annotations would provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase earns its place. The second sentence packs crucial behavioral and cost information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects for correct invocation: purpose, partial-update behavior with the read-first mechanism, and cost. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, explicitly noting each optional parameter is 'unchanged if omitted.' The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—it mentions the three updatable fields but does not enrich their semantics further. Thus, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description earns the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Rename, re-describe, or change the privacy of a playlist.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-playlist-item, which operates on playlist items rather than playlist metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for use (updating title, description, or privacy) and explains a key behavior: 'reads the current playlist first so omitted fields aren't blanked,' which guides partial updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions the quota cost ('1 quota unit per call') and the monetisation gating ('403s unless the channel is an active YouTube Partner Program channel with memberships enabled'), which are critical for an agent to understand potential failures and side effects. This is exemplary transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second covers cost and error conditions. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it costs, and when it will fail. The monetisation warning is critically important and fully disclosed. No critical gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it appropriately focuses on operational details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('your channel's membership pricing levels'), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like `list-members`. The resource is well-defined, leaving no room for misinterpretation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for your channel's membership pricing levels, which implies it's the right choice when you need to view pricing tiers. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name a when-not, but the resource specificity gives enough guidance for typical use.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/kud/mcp-youtube'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server