Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antigravity-mcp

antigravity-mcp

by NohchiyBors
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

agy_generate_tests

Generate automated unit and integration tests for a specified source file, using the chosen test framework to match your project's setup.

Instructions

Generate automated unit/integration tests for the specified source file.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "agy_generate_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNo
filePathYesPath to the source file to generate tests for
testFrameworkNoPreferred test framework (e.g. jest, mocha, pytest)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention side effects (e.g., writing files), required permissions, or whether tests are returned or saved, offering minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not convey what the tool returns or creates, any side effects, or usage prerequisites, leaving important contextual gaps.

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 provides descriptions for filePath and testFramework (67% coverage), but model lacks a description. The tool description does not clarify model's purpose or how parameters interact, though the mention of 'unit/integration tests' provides some context for testFramework.

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 action (generate), resource (automated unit/integration tests), and target (specified source file). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agy_analyze or agy_refactor by focusing on test generation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or competing tools, leaving the user to infer appropriate usage.

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