Retrieve task status and final JSON response by polling every 10 seconds. Capture conversation_id for subsequent tasks.
Read a task status and final Antigravity JSON response. Poll running tasks about every 10 seconds. The response includes a conversation_id that can be passed to a later task. Task records are cleared when the MCP server restarts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already set, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the response includes a reusable conversation_id, and task records are cleared when the MCP server restarts. This gives the agent important lifecycle information beyond the annotation.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds brief polling guidance, response metadata, and lifecycle caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value with no wasted words.
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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, polling behavior, reusable identifier, and ephemeral storage. It is nearly complete; the only notable omission is any explanation of what happens if the task is not yet finished, though the polling advice mitigates this.
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?
The description does not explicitly explain the task_id parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the single parameter is strongly implied by 'Read a task status', so an agent can reasonably infer that task_id identifies the task being read, but the mapping could be more explicit.
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 operation ('Read a task status and final Antigravity JSON response') with a concrete resource and output. It is clear and action-oriented, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling antigravity_status, which likely also reads task status.
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 provides practical usage context by advising polling running tasks about every 10 seconds and noting the conversation_id can be reused. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over antigravity_status or antigravity_cancel, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.