Retrieve YouTube video metadata and playback streams using only a video ID, with automatic fallback to Invidious when Piped is unavailable.
Retrieve video metadata and streams through Piped, with optional Invidious fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It does reveal that the tool uses Piped and may fall back to Invidious, which is useful, but it does not mention failure behavior, external network effects, or the shape of the returned data. 'Retrieve' implies read-only, yet that safety trait is not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and adds a meaningful fallback detail. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to explain more: what metadata fields are returned, what stream variants are provided, and what happens if Piped or Invidious fails. Without this, an agent can invoke it but cannot predict the response or handle common failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema contains only video_id with a type and pattern, and the description adds no parameter-level explanation. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have clarified that video_id is a YouTube video ID rather than a URL and explained any format expectations beyond the regex.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear retrieval verb and identifies the resource as 'video metadata and streams,' which separates it from youtube_search and youtube_play. It does not explicitly mention that the target is identified by video_id, and 'streams' could be more specific, but the core purpose is understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the verb and resource: use this when you need metadata or streams for a specific video. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to youtube_search and youtube_play, so the agent must infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.