Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antigravity-mcp

antigravity-mcp

by NohchiyBors
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

agy_refactor

Refactor a target file according to your instructions and receive the exact code changes directly, with no conversational filler.

Instructions

Refactor target file according to instructions. Returns code changes without conversational fluff.

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>",
      "instructions": "<instructions>"
    },
    "name": "agy_refactor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNo
filePathYesPath to the file to refactor
instructionsYesRefactoring rules and targets

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions return style ('without conversational fluff'). It does not state whether the file is modified in place, permissions required, reversibility, or failure behavior, which is critical for a refactor tool.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and result, with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the minimal info it conveys.

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 mutation-capable tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It omits how changes are applied, what 'code changes' means (diff vs. full file), and how the optional model affects behavior. This falls well short of a complete tool description.

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 schema already describes filePath and instructions, and the description aligns with those. The optional 'model' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's coverage of required parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses specific verb 'Refactor' and resource 'target file', clearly indicating the operation. It adds return behavior ('Returns code changes') and a tone guideline, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools beyond the action verb.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agy_analyze or agy_chat. It lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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