google_youtube_searchSearch YouTube for videos by query and return titles, video IDs, and channels with pagination and adjustable result limits.
Search YouTube for videos and return titles, IDs and channels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageToken | No | Token from a previous page's nextPageToken. | |
| maxResults | No | Max results (default 10). |
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of results (titles, IDs, channels), which substitutes usefully for the missing output schema. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite the pageToken parameter, nor about quota/rate limits that are typical for YouTube search, nor about how the account parameter affects execution.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose and the return payload appear immediately and nothing is wasted.
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 read-only search with a four-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields but omits pagination semantics and multi-account behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps an agent would hit on the second page or in a multi-account setup.
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 all four parameters (query, account, pageToken, maxResults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, such as how paging should be driven or what the account nickname controls, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('Search YouTube for videos') and even enumerates the returned fields (titles, IDs, channels). It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like google_youtube_upload or single-item retrieval like google_youtube_get_video, though it does not explicitly contrast with list-style siblings such as google_youtube_my_videos or google_youtube_subscriptions.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. With ambiguous siblings (my_videos, subscriptions, get_video) present, the agent must infer from the name alone that this is the keyword-search path rather than a listing of owned content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.