Query Millumin for a property's current value by sending its address and return the resulting feedback. Use it to verify live property states before making changes.
Ask Millumin for the current value of one property by sending address + "/?", then return any feedback that came back. Example address: /layer:Intro/opacity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| waitMs | No | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it appends "/?" to the address and returns 'any feedback that came back,' hinting the response may be empty. It does not say what happens on timeout, whether feedback is guaranteed, or what a failed query returns — gaps that matter for a read tool with no annotation safety net.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete wire-protocol example. No filler, no repetition of schema constraints.
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 simple one-address read with no output schema, the description gives enough to construct a call: the address format, the appended suffix, and the shape of the response. The main omission is timeout/empty-response behavior tied to `waitMs`, which an agent would need to interpret a blank result.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well on the required `address` param by giving the format convention and a concrete example (`/layer:Intro/opacity`), but `waitMs` (100–5000, default 500) is never mentioned, leaving a timing control that directly affects whether feedback is captured completely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: read the current value of one property from Millumin. The protocol detail (address + "/?") and the example address make the operation unambiguous, though it never names the read-vs-write boundary against siblings like millumin_set or millumin_feedback.
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?
Usage is only implied by the word 'query' — an agent can infer this is the read path while millumin_set is the write path, but the description never says when to pick this over millumin_feedback or millumin_send_raw, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.