Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YouTube MCP

YouTube MCP

by pratikgh0se
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

youtube_rate_video

Destructive

Set, change, or clear a YouTube video rating (like, dislike, or none) for the authenticated account; explicit confirmation is required before applying the change.

Instructions

Rate a video for the authenticated account.

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>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "youtube_rate_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ratingYesRating to set: like, dislike or none to clear it.
confirmNoMust be true to perform this write; set it only after the user approved the action.
videoIdYesYouTube video ID (11 characters), e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Added value: +"Must be true to perform this write; set it only after the user approved the action."
    • addedInput schema / properties / rating / description
      Added value: +"Rating to set: like, dislike or none to clear it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / videoId / description
      Added value: +"YouTube video ID (11 characters), e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The single annotation (destructiveHint=true) tells the agent this is a write, and the description does not elaborate: nothing about reversibility, idempotency, that the confirm flag must be true, or what YouTube-side effects occur. 'Authenticated account' is the only behavioral context added, which is thin for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity tool, though it is concise to the point of omitting useful behavioral detail.

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 three-parameter write tool with only destructiveHint provided and no output schema, the description leaves the mutation profile unexplained — no statement of reversibility or that the write is gated by user approval. The schema covers parameters fully, so the gap is behavioral rather than structural.

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% and the 'rating' enum plus 'confirm' approval semantics are fully documented there. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Rate') and resource ('video') scoped to the authenticated account, which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling in the list (none of which set a rating). It stops short of saying what 'rate' means here — like/dislike — but the schema resolves that immediately.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about the confirm gate or when clearing a rating with 'none' is appropriate. The only usage-shaped clause is 'for the authenticated account', which is auth scope, not guidance.

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