Retrieve trending YouTube videos filtered by region code and category ID for content analysis.
Get currently trending/popular YouTube videos by region and category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region_code | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (default: "US") | |
| category_id | No | YouTube video category ID (e.g., "10" for Music, "20" for Gaming, "28" for Science & Tech) | |
| max_results | No | Number of results (1-50, default: 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'currently trending/popular' sets time relevance, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or any rate-limit considerations. For a simple fetch tool this is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, resource, and scoping dimensions efficiently, and every word contributes to understanding.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It defines the purpose and scope, while the schema covers parameter semantics. It could be more complete with explicit usage guidance or expected return format, but those are not critical given the simple read operation.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking 'region' and 'category' to the conceptual scope, but it does not explain max_results or the interaction between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently trending/popular YouTube videos'), and specifies the scoping dimensions ('by region and category'). It is distinguishable from sibling search and metadata tools via the 'trending/popular' qualifier, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling by name.
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 use when the agent needs trending or popular videos, and the phrase 'currently trending/popular' hints that this is not a general search tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like search_videos or get_channel_videos, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.