No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 9 tools
The existing tools are cleanly separated: three auth tools, three read tools targeting distinct resources (channel, videos, playlists), a category lookup, and an explicit escape hatch. The only overlap is youtube_request, which can duplicate every other read tool, but it is clearly framed as a fallback that should be preferred less. The bigger confusion source is that several descriptions point at tools that do not exist (youtube_upload_video, youtube_update_video, youtube_add_to_playlist), sending an agent hunting for phantom tools.
All names are snake_case with a consistent youtube_ prefix, and get_/list_ verb patterns are used predictably for reads. Minor deviations: the auth tools use a noun-namespace form (auth_login/status/logout) rather than verb_noun, and youtube_request is a bare noun. These are readable and conventional enough not to cause misselection.
Nine tools is a well-scoped count for a YouTube server and nothing feels padded. The composition is slightly lopsided — three of nine tools are auth lifecycle — but each earns its place given the OAuth flow described. The number itself is appropriate; the issue is which tools are present rather than how many.
The surface is read-only in practice: no upload, update, delete, playlist mutation, or comment tools exist, yet descriptions extensively document upload behavior (long_uploads checks, categoryId passing, processing follow-up) for tools that are absent. Writes are even disabled in youtube_request unless an env var is set, so there is no workaround path. This will cause agent failures on the server's apparent primary use case.