youtube-playlists-mcp

remove_playlist_item

Remove a playlist entry by playlistItemId (not video ID) to delete the intended item from a playlist without affecting the video.

Instructions

Remove an entry from a playlist by playlistItemId (from list_playlist_items; this is NOT the video ID). Quota cost: 50 units per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "playlistItemId": "<playlistItemId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_playlist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playlistItemId`	Yes	playlistItemId from list_playlist_items.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the quota cost (50 units per call), which an agent needs for planning, but omits whether removal requires write authorization, whether it is idempotent, what error occurs for a missing item, and what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential constraint first and the quota cost second. Nothing is redundant with the schema and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers identifier provenance, the key ID-confusion trap, and quota impact — enough to call it correctly. Only the return behavior and mutation side effects remain undisclosed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stressing that playlistItemId is NOT the video ID — a genuine and common source of invocation error. It also reinforces where to obtain the value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb plus resource ("Remove an entry from a playlist") and names the exact identifier to use, explicitly ruling out the video ID. An agent can distinguish this immediately from add_to_playlist or list_playlist_items without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for invocation by naming list_playlist_items as the source of the required playlistItemId, which is the primary prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or what happens if the item is not in the playlist, but the operation's scope is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server