antigravity_list_modelsFetch the model IDs returned by the Antigravity CLI for your account, enabling you to pick a valid model for your coding tasks.
List model IDs actually returned by agy models for this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| models | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the list is dynamic, reflecting what the backing CLI actually returns for this account rather than a static catalog. It does not mention caching, refresh, or empty-result behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the account qualifier is attached directly to the resource. It is arguably too terse to carry usage routing, but nothing in the text is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and a 0-parameter read-only list tool has a very small surface to document. The account-specific, runtime-derived nature of the result is stated, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. Only the sibling relationship is unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The account scoping statement is the only relevant context and it is present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (model IDs) and scopes it to the current account, which distinguishes it from antigravity_set_model and antigravity_get_model. The phrase 'actually returned by agy models' is slightly cryptic (it presumes knowledge of an external CLI command) but the intent — enumerating this account's available models — is recoverable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious sibling antigravity_get_model, which presumably fetches a single model. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before set_model, with nothing in the text to confirm or exclude that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.