Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YouTube Studio MCP

YouTube Studio MCP

by nelsonrogers
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Performance summary

get_performance_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve headline YouTube analytics for a channel or video over a chosen period, including views, watch time, subscribers, engagement, and optional revenue with prior-period comparisons.

Instructions

Headline numbers for a period, like Studio's Overview tab: views, engaged views, watch time (hours), average view duration/percentage, subscribers gained/lost/net, likes, comments, shares, engagement rate, optionally revenue, each with the previous period and % change. Works for the channel or a single video.

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_performance_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoNamed date range, Studio-style. Rolling ranges end at the latest complete day of data (analytics lag ~2-3 days; dates are US Pacific). Ignored when start_date is set.last_28_days
end_dateNoCustom range end, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive). Defaults to the latest complete day.
video_idNoLimit to one video (11-character ID, e.g. 'dQw4w9WgXcQ'). Omit for the whole channel.
start_dateNoCustom range start, YYYY-MM-DD. Overrides `period`.
include_revenueNoAdd estimated revenue, RPM, CPM etc. (monetized channels only).
compare_to_previousNoAlso fetch the previous period of equal length and compute % change.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the useful mental model of a Studio Overview tab and notes comparison-to-previous behavior, but the operationally critical facts (2-3 day analytics lag, US Pacific dates, revenue limited to monetized channels) live only in the schema parameter descriptions, not here. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core definition followed by scope, and no filler. The long metric enumeration is informative but slightly bloats the sentence, and some of that content is already visible in the output schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 0 required parameters, an output schema already documenting return fields, and annotations carrying the read-only safety profile, the description does enough to let an agent call this correctly. The main residual gap is routing guidance among the many analytics siblings and the absence of the data-freshness caveat in the description itself.

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 description coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline. The description still adds conceptual meaning by tying 'optionally revenue' to include_revenue, '% change' to compare_to_previous, and channel-vs-single-video to video_id. It stops short of discussing the period/start_date override relationship, which remains only in the schema.

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?

States a concrete resource and an explicit metric set ('views, engaged views, watch time (hours), average view duration/percentage, subscribers gained/lost/net, ...') and scopes it to 'the channel or a single video'. The 'Studio's Overview tab' analogy pins down the intent quickly. It does not name any sibling analytics tool, so an agent must still infer how this differs from query_analytics or get_metrics_over_time.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Works for the channel or a single video' implies scope selection but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the analytics siblings. There is no statement like 'use this for headline KPIs; use get_metrics_over_time for trends' or a note about when revenue inclusion is appropriate. Usage is inferable from the description, not directed.

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