Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-youtube

mcp-youtube

by mgcrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

YouTube: Login

youtube_auth_login
Idempotent

Sign in with Google to authorize YouTube uploads, choose the target channel, and store a refresh token for later access.

Instructions

Sign in with Google: opens the consent screen in the browser and waits for it to finish, then stores a refresh token (mode 600) and reports which channel it acts as. On the account chooser, pick the channel uploads should go to — a Brand Account channel is listed separately from the personal one. The app is unverified, so Google shows a warning first: Advanced → Go to (app). If no browser can be opened, or the wait runs out, returns the authorize URL instead and keeps listening for 5 minutes; call youtube_auth_status afterwards. Logging in again replaces the stored login.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "youtube_auth_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
openNoOpen the consent screen in the default browser. false only returns the URL.
wait_secondsNoHow long to wait for the consent to complete before returning the URL instead. Defaults to 120.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavior: file mode 600 on the stored token, a 5-minute post-fallback listening window, URL-only fallback when no browser opens, and the unverified-app warning screen the user must click through. "Logging in again replaces the stored login" is consistent with idempotentHint=true, so nothing conflicts.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary effect, then fallback behavior, then the replacement caveat — a sensible order with no filler. It is on the long side, and the "Advanced → Go to (app)" click path is user-facing detail that could arguably be trimmed, though it does help the agent coach the user.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so: it explains that success reports the acting channel and failure returns the authorize URL. The Brand Account vs personal channel nuance and the unverified-app warning cover the practical failure modes an agent will hit.

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 two parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the fallback URL return path ties to the open/wait behavior, and the extra 5-minute listening window explains what happens after wait_seconds expires. That interplay is real added value beyond the defaults.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Sign in with Google") and immediately states the concrete effects: browser consent screen, stored refresh token, and reported acting channel. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling auth tools (status/logout) because it is the only one that initiates the consent flow.

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 operating context and an explicit follow-up route ("call youtube_auth_status afterwards") plus a note that re-running replaces the stored login. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., skip this if youtube_auth_status already reports a valid login), which keeps it 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools