Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YouTube MCP

YouTube MCP

by pratikgh0se
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

youtube_save_curation_policy

Destructive

Saves selected-profile curation allowlists and API-data retention settings, letting you restrict queued YouTube candidates to approved sources and set how long curation data is kept.

Instructions

Save selected-profile local curation allowlists and API-data retention.

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": {
      "allowedSources": "<allowedSources>"
    },
    "name": "youtube_save_curation_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
retentionDaysNoDays to keep curation data, 1-3650; defaults to 30.
allowedSourcesYesSource IDs (channel or playlist IDs) whose candidates may be queued, up to 500.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / allowedSources / description
      Added value: +"Source IDs (channel or playlist IDs) whose candidates may be queued, up to 500."
    • addedInput schema / properties / retentionDays / description
      Added value: +"Days to keep curation data, 1-3650; defaults to 30."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Only destructiveHint=true is provided; the description does not disclose that saving replaces the previously stored allowlist, that shrinking retentionDays may purge existing curation data, or what the tool returns. For a destructive configuration write, these gaps matter. The 'Save' wording is consistent with destructiveHint, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds almost no behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere rather than compensating for it.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is narrowly adequate, but for a destructive, likely-overwriting policy save it omits merge-vs-replace semantics, effect of retention changes on stored data, and any indication of the result.

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 schema documents both allowedSources (channel/playlist IDs, max 500) and retentionDays (1-3650, default 30). The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Save' plus the resources 'curation allowlists' and 'API-data retention' identifies the operation, but the phrasing 'selected-profile local curation allowlists' is jargon-heavy and never clarifies how this configuration differs from related sibling tools such as youtube_save_curation_candidate or youtube_reset_consumption_data.

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 this tool should be used, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the relationship to the candidate/queue tools. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from context.

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