Send an arbitrary OSC message to Millumin when no typed tool fits; destructive addresses are refused unless the server enables them.
Send an arbitrary OSC message to Millumin. Use only when no typed tool fits. Destructive addresses (/action/quit, /action/saveProject) are refused unless the server was started with MILLUMIN_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| address | Yes | OSC address, e.g. /selectedLayer/opacity |
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 safety burden and discloses an important guardrail: destructive OSC addresses are refused unless MILLUMIN_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1. It does not fully describe side effects of non-destructive messages, response behavior, or error handling.
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 three tight sentences with purpose, usage constraint, and safety behavior front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
It covers the critical escape-hatch usage rule and destructive-address guard, which are the main risks. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around args semantics, return values, and error behavior.
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 only 50%, and the description does not explain the args parameter or how values map to OSC arguments. The address parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond the structured fields.
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: send an arbitrary OSC message to Millumin. It also distinguishes this escape-hatch tool from the typed tools by saying to use it only when no typed tool fits.
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?
It gives a clear last-resort rule: use only when no typed tool fits. It also names destructive addresses that are blocked unless an environment flag is set, though it does not explicitly name the alternative typed sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.