MCP yt-dlp Server

by timyee22

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: updating the tool, downloading videos, downloading streams, fetching metadata, listing formats, and searching. There is no overlap between download_video and download_stream (explicitly split by content type), and get_video_info/list_formats serve separate informational purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: update, download, get, list, search. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns specify the target, making the convention uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a yt-dlp wrapper. Each tool covers a core functionality (update, video download, stream download, info retrieval, format listing, search) without redundancy or bloat, fitting neatly in the typical 3-15 tool range.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the essential lifecycle for video retrieval: searching, inspecting (info/formats), and downloading (video/stream). Minor gaps exist, such as playlist downloads or extracting audio, but agents can likely work around these via download options, so the surface is adequate for most primary workflows.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under The Unlicense.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it downloads a video using yt-dlp and supports many sites. It does not mention whether downloads are synchronous, how long they might take, what the output is, error handling, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.
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 concise, using two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and intent, and the site support note is brief. It earns a 4 because it is well-structured and to the point, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens after download (return value, file path, errors), does not mention the option to extract audio or subtitles, and lacks any guidance on playlist handling or format selection. An agent given only this description would be under-informed for complex use cases.
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% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning yt-dlp, which implies behavior but not parameter usage. Per baseline guidance, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 states a clear verb ('download') and resource ('video from a URL'), and identifies the underlying tool (yt-dlp). It also notes broad site support ('YouTube and many other sites'), which gives context. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'download_stream', so the agent cannot tell them apart without additional investigation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus 'download_stream' or other siblings. The description only mentions broad site support, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only restates the action ('Download') without mentioning any consequences such as prolonged execution for live streams, resource usage, or dependency on ffmpeg. This is a significant gap for a streaming download tool.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and target. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to scan. It could be slightly longer to include behavioral context, but as written it is efficient.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to handle live streams (e.g., needing a duration to stop capture) or the meaning of advanced options like additionalArgs. An agent may struggle to call this tool correctly without additional 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 description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters with 100% coverage. The schema already explains fields like duration and outputName, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a clear action ('Download') and a specific target ('a live stream or m3u8/HLS stream'), and mentions the underlying tool yt-dlp. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_video by specifying stream types, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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 description implies usage for live or HLS streams, which gives some guidance. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that download_video is for regular videos. The guidance is present but implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and that it doesn't download; it omits any details about side effects, rate limits, error behavior, or return format. The lack of an output schema compounds this, leaving the agent unaware of what information is actually returned.
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 redundant words. It delivers the core purpose and a key constraint ('without downloading') in the least space possible, making it concise and well-structured.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too vague. It says 'information' without specifying what fields are returned (e.g., title, duration, formats). An agent cannot predict the output structure or know if it's suitable for its task. It also omits any caveats (e.g., network requirements, playlist behavior). This is a significant gap given the tool's informational purpose.
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 both url and flatPlaylist are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema already covers semantics. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 action ('get information') and the resource ('video or stream URL'), and explicitly distinguishes from download tools with 'without downloading it.' This is a specific, unambiguous statement that differentiates it from sibling tools like download_video and download_stream.
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 phrase 'without downloading it' implies use when metadata is needed without fetching content, but no explicit contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_formats or search_videos) is given. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the intended usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the search is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the output looks like. It only mentions the use of yt-dlp extractors, which is a minor detail but not sufficient for a tool with zero annotations.
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, concise sentence that gets to the point. It is appropriately brief, but it could arguably include more useful details without becoming verbose. It is not bloated, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral context.
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 no output schema and no additional description, the tool lacks a clear statement of return value structure. The description is minimal and does not mention what the search results will look like or how the extractor parameter affects results. It is adequate for a simple search tool, but leaves gaps in expectations.
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%, meaning the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately, though the description does not enhance them.
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's action ('Search for videos') and the mechanism ('using yt-dlp's extractors'). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like download_video or get_video_info, which involve retrieval or actions on specific videos rather than searching.
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 description implies usage for searching videos, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The differentiation from sibling tools is not articulated, so an agent must infer the intended context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether a network request is made, what the output format looks like (e.g., array of format objects, metadata fields), or potential error conditions (invalid URL, unsupported site). This is adequate for a simple read tool 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 wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('List') and immediately names the target resource. For a tool with one parameter and a straightforward purpose, this is appropriately concise.
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 a single parameter and a simple purpose, so the description is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema and no mention of what 'formats' means or the return structure (e.g., a list of format objects with resolution, codec, etc.), an agent may be uncertain what to expect. Since annotations are absent and the description doesn't compensate for the missing output schema, it leaves a small but real gap.
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%, with the 'url' parameter already described as 'The URL to list formats for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond calling it a 'video URL', which is essentially the same. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or expand on any parameter behavior.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available formats for a video URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like download_video or download_stream, which perform downloads, and from get_video_info, which likely returns different metadata. An agent can easily tell what this tool does and when it's the right one.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical workflows (e.g., listing formats before choosing a download stream), nor does it advise against using it in certain situations. With multiple sibling tools available, the absence of any contextual routing leaves the agent to infer usage on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing effects. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but omits any side effects: whether it requires internet, modifies the local installation, may fail if not installed, or what happens if already up-to-date. This is a significant gap for a tool that changes system state.
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, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource. There is no wasted wordage, and it is immediately scannable. It earns a top score for conciseness.
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 (no parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description covers the core behavior. However, it could briefly mention that the update requires internet connectivity or that it will fetch and install the latest release, which would round out the context. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description is not missing any parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a precise resource ('yt-dlp') with the goal ('to the latest version'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which handle downloading, searching, or metadata retrieval. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., yt-dlp being installed, network access) or conditions that would trigger an update. The description gives no context for when an agent should select this tool—only what it does.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![yt-dlp-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/timyee22/yt-dlp-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/timyee22/yt-dlp-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yt-dlp-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/timyee22/yt-dlp-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/timyee22/yt-dlp-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/timyee22/yt-dlp-MCP'

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