Skip to main content
Glama
shubhamshnd

ytmcp

by shubhamshnd
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are mostly distinct: listing available transcripts and fetching a full transcript are clearly different. However, get_transcript and get_transcript_with_time_range both fetch transcripts and could be confused, though the time-range description mitigates ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using 'get_' and 'list_', with descriptive modifiers like 'with_time_range'. The naming is predictable and clearly maps to each tool's purpose.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to YouTube transcript retrieval. This is an appropriate size for such a niche domain, with no unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers listing languages and fetching transcripts (full and by range), but there is no explicit way to choose a specific language from the list. This creates a potential dead end where users can see available languages but not act on them.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates that timestamps are included, which is already implied by the schema's default. It does not disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., when no transcript is available), or any side effects.

    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 concise and to the point. Given the simplicity of the sentence, it earns a high score for structure, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

    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?

    The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the returned transcript looks like, how languages are handled, or how this tool relates to the time-range variant. It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity, as the agent would need additional information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

    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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the mention of timestamps corresponds to the include_timestamps parameter default but offers no extra insight into parameter usage or edge cases.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (YouTube video transcript), and mentions 'with timestamps' which hints at a key feature. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_transcript_with_time_range, which could cause confusion about when to use which.

    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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the siblings (list_available_transcripts, get_transcript_with_time_range), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Users are left to infer the appropriate use case.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but adds no additional details such as return format, behavior when no transcripts exist, or whether auto-generated captions are included. This is adequate but not rich.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no complex nested objects), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core function. It lacks some behavioral details like output shape, but for a listing operation this is acceptable.

    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 coverage is 100% with the parameter description 'YouTube video URL or video ID'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, 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.

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource ('available transcript languages for a YouTube video'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_transcript, get_transcript_with_time_range) by focusing on listing languages rather than fetching transcript content.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The usage context is implied: one would call this tool to discover which transcript languages are available before fetching a transcript. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over the sibling tools or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the guidance implicit.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, language fallback behavior, or what happens if no transcript exists for the range. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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

    Conciseness5/5

    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 highly concise and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

    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?

    The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns to some degree. It says 'Fetch transcript' but does not indicate return format (e.g., text, JSON, list of segments) or edge-case behavior. Given the simple read-only nature, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in context.

    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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely contextualizes the time-range parameters generically.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool fetches a transcript for a specific time range of a YouTube video, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('transcript for a specific time range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list available transcripts or fetch full transcripts.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description clearly indicates the use case (fetching a transcript segment by time range), which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ytmcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ytmcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/shubhamshnd/ytmcp'

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