Antigravity MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read Antigravity events

antigravity_events

Read-only

Read live normalized events for a task after a sequence cursor, including original payloads, to track streaming progress in real time.

Instructions

Read live normalized agy events after a sequence cursor. Includes original agy event payloads.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "antigravity_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	No
`limit`	No
`taskId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`events`	No
`truncated`	No
`nextCursor`	No
`oldestAvailable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: events are 'live', 'normalized', returned 'after a sequence cursor', and include original payloads. It omits pagination/limit behavior and termination semantics, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is return-value detail that borders on redundant given the output schema exists, but it is not wasteful enough to drop below a 4.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists so return values need little explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with a required taskId and a limit parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no guidance on cursor advancement or loop termination, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the `after` cursor implicitly, but says nothing about `limit` (max 1000) or the required `taskId`, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('events') plus a cursor-based retrieval mode, but 'agy' is undefined jargon and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like antigravity_status or antigravity_result, which an agent could easily confuse with an event stream.

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 phrase 'after a sequence cursor' hints at incremental polling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., status vs. events). The agent must infer the polling pattern.

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