YouTube Studio MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Auth status

get_auth_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks YouTube sign-in status, identifies the channel being read, and lists granted permissions; use it first when another tool reports an authentication issue.

Instructions

Check whether the server is signed in to YouTube, which channel it reads, and which permissions were granted. Call this first if any other tool reports a sign-in problem.

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": "get_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful framing that this is a diagnostic/preflight check reporting channel and granted permissions, but since an output schema exists the return details are already documented, leaving only modest added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states what is checked, the second states the trigger, front-loaded with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema describing returns, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is verified and the condition that should prompt a call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter semantics gaps exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names specific verb+resource ('check whether the server is signed in to YouTube') and enumerates what is verified: sign-in state, reading channel, and granted permissions. It is clearly distinct from analytics siblings, but it never names 'authenticate' as the related alternative, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 an explicit trigger condition — 'Call this first if any other tool reports a sign-in problem' — which tells an agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to the 'authenticate' sibling for fixing (rather than diagnosing) a sign-in problem.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.