Run named Millumin actions with optional arguments, enabling MCP clients to control playback, columns, layers, and test cards over OSC.
Run a Millumin action, e.g. launchColumn [index or name], stopColumn, launchNextColumn, playOrPause, goToTime [seconds], selectLayer [index or name], displayTestCard, hideTestCard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Action arguments | |
| name | Yes | Action name without the /action/ prefix, e.g. launchColumn |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists action names but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or whether actions are synchronous, which is a significant gap for an action-execution tool.
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, and the examples earn their place by illustrating valid action names and argument forms. The dense list format is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate to call common actions. However, the absence of annotations leaves behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, and error handling undocumented, and sibling differentiation is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning by showing example action names and their expected arguments, such as launchColumn [index or name] and goToTime [seconds]. This helps the agent understand how the generic 'args' array is used in practice.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a Millumin action', and gives concrete action names such as launchColumn and goToTime. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like millumin_send_raw or millumin_set.
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 examples imply that this tool runs named Millumin actions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as millumin_set, millumin_send_raw, or millumin_query. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.