Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YouTube MCP

YouTube MCP

by pratikgh0se
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

youtube_save_curation_candidate

Destructive

Save a selected YouTube curation candidate locally with source provenance and reason, so you can track videos that passed review before queueing.

Instructions

Save a selected-profile local curation candidate with source provenance.

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>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "sourceId": "<sourceId>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "youtube_save_curation_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesVideo title, up to 500 characters.
reasonNoWhy this video was picked, up to 2000 characters.
sourceYesHow the candidate was found: allowlist, playlist or search.
videoIdYesYouTube video ID (11 characters), e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ.
sourceIdYesID of the source it came from; it must be in allowedSources to be queued.
apiFetchedAtNoISO 8601 time the video data was fetched from the YouTube API.
estimatedMinutesNoEstimated watch time in whole minutes; candidates without it are never queued.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / apiFetchedAt / description
      Added value: +"ISO 8601 time the video data was fetched from the YouTube API."
    • addedInput schema / properties / estimatedMinutes / description
      Added value: +"Estimated watch time in whole minutes; candidates without it are never queued."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"Why this video was picked, up to 2000 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"How the candidate was found: allowlist, playlist or search."
    • addedInput schema / properties / sourceId / description
      Added value: +"ID of the source it came from; it must be in allowedSources to be queued."
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Video title, up to 500 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / videoId / description
      Added value: +"YouTube video ID (11 characters), e.g. dQw4w9WgXcQ."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare only destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive for a tool named "save"; the description does nothing to explain what is destroyed or overwritten (existing candidate? queue entry?), whether writes are local-only, or whether it is idempotent. With no read/write hints beyond destructiveHint, a mutation tool needs far more disclosure than this single sentence.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting meaning rather than by compressing it.

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 7-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description leaves the payoff and consequences unstated: what "local curation candidate" means, what happens on success, and why destructiveHint is set. An agent can guess inputs from the schema but cannot predict effects.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase "with source provenance" loosely points at source/sourceId but adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond what the schema states.

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 has a concrete verb ("Save") and object ("curation candidate"), and mentions provenance, so the general shape is inferable. But "selected-profile local curation candidate" is internal jargon that is never unpacked, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like youtube_save_curation_policy or youtube_propose_consumption_queue.

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 statement of when to call this tool, what must precede it (e.g., a search or playlist listing that produced the candidate), or how it differs from the policy-save and queue-proposal siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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