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

Antigravity Mobile Command MCP Server

by JacksonFuck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_project_code

Search project source for code patterns using grep, returning matching files with line numbers and content snippets.

Instructions

Search for code patterns in the project using grep. Returns matching files with line numbers and content snippets.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_project_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch string or pattern to find
file_typesNoFile extensions to search (e.g., ['.py', '.js'])
max_resultsNoMaximum results to return (default: 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format (matching files, line numbers, snippets) and the use of grep, but it omits explicit statements about being read-only or potential limitations like case sensitivity or binary file handling.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and the return format. It is concise and free of irrelevant details.

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 straightforward search tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose and return format adequately. It could be more complete by also explaining how file_types and max_results affect the search, but the essentials are covered.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (query, file_types, max_results) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('code patterns in the project'), and mechanism ('using grep'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_project_file or list_project_files by emphasizing content search with line numbers and snippets.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_project_files or read_project_file. It does not state conditions or mention any sibling tools for comparison.

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