google_youtube_list_playlistsRetrieve a user's YouTube playlists by account, with pagination and result limits, so agents can reference or manage channel content.
List the user's YouTube playlists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageToken | No | Token from a previous page's nextPageToken. | |
| maxResults | No | Max playlists (default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Token from a previous page's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}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, yet it says nothing about whether results are owned playlists or subscriptions, what order they come back in, or how pagination terminates. Only the safe-read nature is implicitly conveyed by "List".
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though it verges on under-specification rather than being richly concise.
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?
No output schema and no annotations; the description never indicates what a playlist record contains (ID, title) or how to use nextPageToken to continue, which matters for chaining into add_to_playlist or delete_playlist. For a 3-param list tool this leaves real gaps.
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% and all three parameters (account, pageToken, maxResults) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter behavior or defaults.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the user's YouTube playlists"), which is distinguishable from siblings like google_youtube_create_playlist or google_youtube_add_to_playlist. It does not clarify scope versus google_youtube_my_videos or what "the user's" means (owned vs subscribed).
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no hint about paging through results or choosing an account. The agent must infer that pageToken/maxResults exist for pagination purely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.