Skip to main content
Glama
tuyennn

Xiaozhi YouTube MCP

by tuyennn
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are distinct: search returns multiple URLs, play returns one best match, get provides metadata. However, search and play both handle song queries, causing slight overlap, but descriptions clarify their usage.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'youtube_verb_noun' pattern (search_song, play_song, get_video), using underscores and clear action-object format.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for a focused YouTube music MCP server, covering search, playback, and metadata without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers core music workflows: searching songs, playing, and getting video details. Minor gaps like playlist or recommendation support exist but are outside stated scope.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 21 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

    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 concise sentence that includes all critical information: action, resource, and output fields. No wasted words.

    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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema needed), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return values. However, it lacks information on error scenarios or state changes, which would be needed for complete understanding.

    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% for the single parameter videoId, which includes a pattern and description. The description adds the list of returned fields, but does not enhance the meaning of the parameter itself beyond the schema.

    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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'YouTube video details', listing specific fields like title, channel, duration, etc. This differentiates it from sibling tools youtube_search_song (search) and youtube_play_song (play).

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. It simply describes what it does without contextual usage advice.

    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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a 'playback-ready URL' but does not detail any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no match is found. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

    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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds context for usage. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information.

    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?

    Given no output schema, low parameter coverage (0%), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the primary output (one URL) and usage hint, but lacks details on error handling, best-match criteria, or authentication. It suffices for a simple tool but could be more comprehensive.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter (e.g., query, regionCode, officialOnly, relevanceLanguage), failing to add meaning beyond the raw schema types and constraints. The parameters are mostly self-explanatory, but the description should have provided at least basic context.

    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 finds the best matching song and returns a playback-ready YouTube URL. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'youtube_search_song' by implying a single best result, and from 'youtube_get_video' by focusing on playback readiness. The mention of voice commands adds context.

    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 explicitly recommends this tool for direct voice commands like 'play...', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implicitly suggests alternatives such as 'youtube_search_song' for broader searches, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

    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 full burden. It mentions returning 'playable YouTube URLs' but does not disclose limitations like authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. For a search tool, minimal behavioral context is given.

    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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

    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?

    Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but missing details such as result format, pagination, or location restrictions. It explains purpose but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand usage nuances.

    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 71%, so the schema already documents 5 of 7 parameters. The description adds little extra meaning beyond emphasizing 'playable YouTube URLs.' With moderate coverage, a 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 clearly states 'Search YouTube Music-category videos and return playable YouTube URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings (youtube_play_song and youtube_get_video) by focusing on searching rather than playing or retrieving a single video.

    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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to find or play a song,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings imply other use cases.

    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

xiaozhi-youtube-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

xiaozhi-youtube-mcp 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/tuyennn/xiaozhi-youtube-mcp'

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