Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antigravity-mcp

antigravity-mcp

by NohchiyBors
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

agy_explain_error

Diagnose compiler, runtime, and stack trace errors from raw logs and get actionable fixes to resolve them quickly.

Instructions

Explain compiler, runtime, or stack trace errors and provide actionable fixes.

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": {
      "errorLog": "<errorLog>"
    },
    "name": "agy_explain_error"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNo
errorLogYesRaw compiler/runtime error message or stack trace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the core function but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what the response format is, how the model parameter affects behavior, or any side effects. The description offers no additional context beyond the basic action.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundancy. It earns its place without waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It fails to cover usage context, the optional model parameter, or what the returned explanation looks like. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 50% description coverage (only errorLog is described). The tool description does little to add meaning: it merely restates the errorLog purpose and provides no explanation for the 'model' parameter, leaving it ambiguous. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and clearly identifies the resource: compiler, runtime, and stack trace errors. It also states the outcome (actionable fixes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_analyze or agy_refactor that focus on other tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when an error is encountered (compiler/runtime/stack trace), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so guidance is only implicit.

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