Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antigravity Mobile Command MCP Server

Antigravity Mobile Command MCP Server

by JacksonFuck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

read_project_file

Read files from the current project to verify changes or report contents to Telegram.

Instructions

Read the contents of a file from the current project. Use to report file contents back to Telegram or verify changes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "read_project_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_lineNoOptional end line (1-indexed)
file_pathYesRelative path to the file within the project
start_lineNoOptional start line (1-indexed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or return format. It adds usage context but is sparse on behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a succinct usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does and when to use it, while the schema covers parameter details. Missing explicit return-value description is minor for such an obvious operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains file_path, start_line, and end_line. The description does not add extra meaning to these parameters, warranting the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads file contents from the current project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like write_project_file, list_project_files, and search_project_code.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'report file contents back to Telegram or verify changes.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this read tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools