Skip to main content
Glama

youtube_get_video

Read-only

Retrieves a public YouTube video by its 11-character ID, enabling AI assistants to look up specific video details when only the ID is known.

Instructions

Get a public YouTube video by ID.

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_video"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main added value is the "public" qualifier, which signals that unlisted, private, or owned-only videos are not retrievable here. It says nothing about quota cost, error behavior for invalid/private IDs, or what portion of the video resource is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing could be removed without losing content. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials for calling it are present. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back (snippet, statistics, duration), leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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, including the 11-character format and an example, so the description carries no additional semantic burden. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get a public YouTube video") with a scope qualifier ("public") that separates it from youtube_get_owned_video and video-listing siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed to it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The word "public" hints that private/owned videos are out of scope, but the agent gets no direction toward youtube_get_owned_video or youtube_search when the lookup fails.

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