Skip to main content
Glama

youtube_get_transcript

Read-only

Retrieves a best-effort public transcript for a YouTube video using its video ID, so AI assistants can read and analyze spoken content.

Instructions

Get a best-effort public transcript for a video.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "videoId": "<videoId>"
    },
    "name": "youtube_get_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
videoIdYesYouTube video ID (11 characters), e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / videoId / description
      Added value: +"YouTube video ID (11 characters), e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description usefully adds that the result is 'best-effort' (may fail or be partial) and 'public' (only publicly available transcripts), but says nothing about the returned format or whether failures surface as errors or empty results.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the qualifier 'best-effort public' is front-loaded so the agent sees the caveat immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back — plain text, timestamped segments, language selection, or empty on failure — and it says none of that. For a tool whose only real question is 'what do I receive', this is a significant gap.

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?

The single videoId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including format and an example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transcript') scoped to a video, which is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from related siblings like youtube_download_caption or youtube_list_caption_tracks, leaving the agent to infer how a 'transcript' differs from 'captions'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The words 'best-effort public' hint at constraints, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus youtube_download_caption or youtube_list_caption_tracks. No prerequisites (public-only, no auth) are spelled out as usage conditions.

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