YouTube Studio MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List playlists

list_playlists

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a YouTube channel’s playlists with item counts and privacy settings so you can select a playlist ID and list its videos.

Instructions

The channel's playlists with item counts and privacy. Use list_videos(playlist_id=...) to see a playlist's videos.

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": "list_playlists"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum playlists to return.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include item counts and privacy fields, but says nothing about pagination beyond the limit cap, ordering, or whether unlisted/private playlists are included.

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 short sentences, the result content front-loaded and the follow-up call placed second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and there is no filler.

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 an output schema covering return shape and rich annotations, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. It is slightly thin on scope (whole channel vs. a subset) and on truncation behavior when limit is hit, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is documented with default, min and max, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about limit semantics (e.g., whether exceeding it truncates silently), leaving it at the baseline.

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 the resource (the channel's playlists) and what each entry carries (item counts and privacy), which is more specific than the name alone. It also separates itself from the video-listing path by pointing at list_videos for playlist contents, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the title.

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 routing rule for the adjacent task: once you have a playlist, use list_videos(playlist_id=...) to read its videos. It does not state trigger conditions for this tool itself or say when another listing tool would be preferable, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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