Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

youtube_list_playlist_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and paginate videos from a YouTube playlist by playlist ID to support content review and automation workflows.

Instructions

List videos in a YouTube playlist.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "playlist_id": "<playlist_id>"
    },
    "name": "youtube_list_playlist_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYes
page_tokenNo
max_resultsNo
playlist_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention pagination via page_token, result limits, rate limits, or that the playlist must be public/unlisted-accessible.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple read tool. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description should carry more burden: it should at least explain page_token/max_results pagination behavior and what a returned item looks like. As written, an agent can call the tool but cannot page reliably or predict the response shape.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters (api_key, playlist_id, page_token, max_results) are undocumented. The description only vaguely implies playlist_id and says nothing about pagination or result-size parameters that materially affect calls.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List videos in a YouTube playlist'), which clearly separates it from youtube_list_playlists (lists playlists) and youtube_get_video (single video). It's clear, but adds no scope detail such as ordering or what fields come back.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus youtube_search, youtube_list_playlists, or youtube_get_video, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid playlist ID or API key). The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools