Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YouTube MCP

YouTube MCP

by pratikgh0se
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

youtube_list_channel_comment_threads

Read-only

List comment threads on the authenticated YouTube channel to review conversations from any author. Set maxResults (1–50) to control how many threads are returned.

Instructions

List comment threads associated with the authenticated channel; authors may be anyone.

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": "youtube_list_channel_comment_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxResultsNoMaximum number of items to return, 1-50; omit to use the tool default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxResults / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of items to return, 1-50; omit to use the tool default."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by noting the scope is the authenticated channel and that authors are unrestricted (i.e., results may include unrelated or spam commenters). It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or whether threads include replies.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the scoping constraint front-loaded, plus one genuinely informative qualifier. No filler.

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-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope and audience but leaves the return shape (thread resources, reply counts, ordering) undescribed. Adequate but with a clear gap given there is no output schema to carry that burden.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents maxResults including its 1-50 range. The description adds no further meaning and doesn't mention the parameter at all, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('List comment threads') and scopes it to 'the authenticated channel,' which is distinct from video-scoped comment listing. The added 'authors may be anyone' clause further separates it from the moderation-comment siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the broad channel-wide comment listing, and 'authors may be anyone' hints it is not the held-for-review moderation list. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance against youtube_list_moderation_comments or youtube_get_comments.

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