Retrieve videos from any YouTube playlist by providing its playlist ID, such as LL for Liked Videos or a custom PL playlist. Set the maximum number of results to control the output.
List videos from any YouTube playlist ID (e.g. LL for Liked Videos or custom PL...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxResults | No | Max videos to return. | |
| playlistId | Yes | The YouTube playlist ID (e.g. 'LL' for Liked Videos or 'PL...'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'List videos' and reveals nothing about authentication for private playlists like 'LL', rate limits, pagination, or what the response shape looks like. This is minimal for a tool with zero 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is one concise sentence with no filler; the main action ('List videos') is front-loaded and followed immediately by the relevant scope. Every part earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, and the description plus schema are enough for a basic call. However, it omits details about return shape, special playlist access requirements, or edge-case behavior, so it remains minimally viable rather than complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema itself includes the same 'LL' and 'PL...' examples for playlistId and documents maxResults, so the description is not needed for parameter understanding.
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 ('List') and resource ('videos from any YouTube playlist ID'), with concrete examples like 'LL' and 'PL...' that clarify scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_liked_videos or list_feed, so it stops short of full sibling discrimination.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when the agent has a YouTube playlist ID and wants the videos in it. It gives useful ID examples but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance, leaving selection partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.