Launched this week
Capslane gives developers a stable API for YouTube transcripts. It returns native captions when available and automatically generates a timestamped transcript when they are missing. Get plain text or structured segments, choose a language, manage API keys, inspect usage, and connect through JavaScript, Python, MCP, or n8n. Start with 50 free requests each month.
Forge
Dial
To answer your question directly: clearer reliability data would move the needle most for me. "Falls back to auto-transcription when captions are missing" is the right design, but in production I'd want to know the accuracy delta between native captions and the fallback transcription before I trust it for anything beyond search/indexing. If a caller can request confidence scores or at least a flag for "this came from auto mode," that's the difference between using it for full-text search vs. using it for something a user actually reads.
Forge
@galdayan Thanks for taking the time to explain this. The distinction between search/indexing and content people actually read is a useful way to frame it.
Capslane already includes source: "native" or source: "generated" in completed responses, including in auto mode, so you can apply different review rules without building separate pipelines.
Your point about accuracy comparisons is well taken. Making provenance easier to discover and providing clearer quality benchmarks would help developers make those decisions with more confidence. Appreciate the concrete feedback!