Antigravity MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Clean expired isolated copies

antigravity_cleanup

Destructive

Removes finished repository copies older than COPY_RETENTION_HOURS while preserving active copies, helping maintain clean task workspaces and controlled disk use.

Instructions

Remove finished copies older than COPY_RETENTION_HOURS. Active copies are preserved.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "antigravity_cleanup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`discardedTaskIds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed (finished copies past retention) and what is protected (active copies), which is precisely the context that matters for a destructive 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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The destructive scope leads and the preservation guarantee follows, which is the right ordering for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers scope and safeguards adequately for a zero-argument cleanup; it omits only peripheral details such as whether COPY_RETENTION_HOURS is configurable or what permissions are needed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics gaps exist.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (finished copies older than COPY_RETENTION_HOURS) plus a scoping rule (active copies preserved). It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like antigravity_discard or antigravity_cancel, so an agent must infer that this is the bulk/expiry-based cleanup rather than the single-item removal.

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?

Usage is only implied: the retention rule signals when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for targeted removal. An agent can infer the intent but is not steered away from misuse.

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