get_videoRetrieve details for a single YouTube video by ID, including metadata, privacy and schedule, processing status, duration, captions availability, and statistics.
Full details of one video: metadata, privacy and schedule, processing state, duration, captions flag and statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | Which connected channel: channel ID (UC...), @handle or name. Omit to use the default channel. | |
| video_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by telling the agent what data surfaces (privacy, schedule, processing state), but says nothing about error behavior for missing/private videos or channel resolution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed facet earns its place by sketching the response shape. It is a sentence fragment rather than prose, but that aids scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload, which is the main completeness burden here. It still leaves the required video_id parameter unexplained and gives no usage framing, so a moderately complex read tool is only adequately documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% – video_id has no description at all in the schema, and the description does not explain its expected format or where to obtain it. The 'channel' parameter is documented in the schema, not the description, so the description contributes nothing beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-and-resource framing ("Full details of one video") and enumerates the returned facets: metadata, privacy/schedule, processing state, duration, captions flag, statistics. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list_my_videos or get_analytics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says this requires a known video_id, or when to prefer it over list_my_videos or get_analytics. The singular "one video" only weakly implies the lookup-by-ID scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.