Skip to main content
Glama
JamesZor

Antigravity MCP Server

by JamesZor

propose_research_questions

Generate clarifying questions and sub-questions to refine a research brief before committing to full research, reducing cost and focusing effort.

Instructions

Draft clarifying questions and candidate sub-questions to sharpen a research brief.

Run this BEFORE research_fanout. It offloads brainstorming the interview to a cheap
agy model: it returns clarifying questions (each with suggested answer options) that the
orchestrator should put to the user, plus a draft set of sub-questions. The orchestrator
then asks the user, refines the brief, and only then spends quota on research_fanout.

Returns JSON: {"clarifying_questions": [{"question", "why", "options": [...]}],
"draft_subquestions": [...]}. Falls back to raw text if the model returns non-JSON.

Args:
    topic: The research topic to interrogate.
    context: Optional extra context (audience, deadline, what's already known).
    tier: Model tier for the brainstorm (default 'flash' — this is a cheap task).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoflash
topicYes
contextNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses return format (JSON with specific fields), fallback behavior (raw text if non-JSON), and model tier (cheap task, default 'flash'). With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden and does it adequately, though it could mention statelessness or performance characteristics.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise (~150 words) and front-loaded with purpose. It follows a logical flow: purpose, usage, return format, args. Minor improvement would be to separate sections more clearly, but it is efficient and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the 3-parameter input, output JSON description, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers workflow, parameter meanings, and output structure. Slightly lacking on error handling (fallback raw text not fully described) but overall comprehensive.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All three parameters (topic, context, tier) are described in the 'Args' section with useful explanations and examples. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this description fully compensates and adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Draft' and the resource 'clarifying questions and candidate sub-questions to sharpen a research brief'. Distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'research_fanout' by explicitly stating it should be run before it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Run this BEFORE research_fanout' and explains the subsequent steps (orchestrator asks user, refines brief, then spends quota on research_fanout). This clearly indicates the tool's position in the pipeline.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JamesZor/antigravity'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server