google_youtube_add_to_playlistAdd a YouTube video to a playlist by entering the video ID and playlist ID. Automate playlist curation through Google services.
Add a video to a playlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| videoId | Yes | Video ID to add. | |
| playlistId | Yes | Playlist ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation (adding a video) but does not mention side effects, such as whether the video is appended to the end of the playlist, whether duplicates are allowed, or whether authentication/account selection is required. The 'account' parameter hints at multi-account support but the description does not explain its role.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming verbose.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the account parameter, the expected result, or any constraints (e.g., playlist ownership). An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it correctly in a multi-account context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting. The 'account' parameter's purpose is still unclear from both schema and description.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Add a video to a playlist'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like google_youtube_create_playlist or google_youtube_list_playlists, though the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer the purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing playlist, or that the video must exist, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The context is minimal and leaves usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.