Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YouTube MCP

YouTube MCP

by pratikgh0se
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

youtube_preflight_reply_to_comment

Destructive

Preview a reply to a YouTube channel comment before posting to verify the response is appropriate.

Instructions

Read and preview a reply to an immutable creator-channel comment.

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "youtube_preflight_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesReply text, up to 10000 characters.
commentIdYesID of a comment on the selected channel, from youtube_list_channel_comment_threads or youtube_list_moderation_comments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / commentId / description
      Added value: +"ID of a comment on the selected channel, from youtube_list_channel_comment_threads or youtube_list_moderation_comments."
    • addedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Added value: +"Reply text, up to 10000 characters."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description says 'Read and preview,' which strongly implies a safe, non-mutating operation. That is a material contradiction about whether the tool has side effects, and the description adds no other behavioral details such as validation behavior, side effects, or whether a comment is actually created.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the ambiguity noted in other dimensions.

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?

For a preflight mutation tool with no output schema and a potentially contradictory destructive annotation, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what the preview returns, whether a reply is actually posted, what validation occurs, or how it relates to the real reply operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (commentId and text) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or usage beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ('Read and preview') and resource ('a reply to a comment'), but 'Read' is ambiguous and it never explicitly says this tool validates/dry-runs a reply without posting it. It also does not name the sibling youtube_reply_to_comment, so an agent must infer that this is the non-sending counterpart.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus youtube_reply_to_comment or any other sibling. The intended workflow is only weakly implied by the word 'preflight' in the tool name, not by the description itself.

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