Skip to main content
Glama
ravinwebsurgeon

DataForSEO MCP Server

serp_youtube_video_comments_live_advanced

Analyze YouTube video comments by specifying video ID, location, and language to gather audience insights and engagement data for content strategy.

Instructions

provides data on the video comments you specify

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
video_idYesID of the video
location_nameYesfull name of the location required field Location format - hierarchical, comma-separated (from most specific to least) Can be one of: 1. Country only: "United States" 2. Region,Country: "California,United States" 3. City,Region,Country: "San Francisco,California,United States"
language_codeYessearch engine language code (e.g., 'en')
deviceNodevice type optional field can take the values:desktop, mobile default value: desktopdesktop
osNodevice operating system optional field if you specify desktop in the device field, choose from the following values: windows, macos default value: windows if you specify mobile in the device field, choose from the following values: android, ios default value: androidwindows
depthNoparsing depth, number of results in SERP, max value: 700
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination). The term 'provides data' is too generic, offering no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, short sentence ('provides data on the video comments you specify'), which is concise but under-specified—it lacks necessary detail to be truly helpful. While it avoids verbosity, it doesn't front-load critical information or structure content effectively, leaving the agent with insufficient context. It's not wasteful, but it's too minimal to earn a higher score.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., comment data format, error handling), behavioral aspects, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide a holistic understanding, making it inadequate for a tool that likely involves data retrieval from an external service like YouTube SERP.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'video_id', 'location_name' with format details, 'depth' with max value). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining why these parameters matter or how they affect the results. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'provides data on the video comments you specify' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'serp_youtube_video_comments_live_advanced' without specifying what kind of data (e.g., comment text, metadata, sentiment) or how it's retrieved. It lacks a clear verb-resource distinction and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'serp_youtube_video_info_live_advanced' or 'serp_youtube_video_subtitles_live_advanced', which could also provide video-related data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use (e.g., for SEO analysis, sentiment tracking), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced', 'serp_youtube_video_info_live_advanced'), the absence of comparative guidance is a significant gap, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ravinwebsurgeon/seo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server