Antigravity MCP Bridge

by Zythenth

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Check Antigravity CLI

antigravity_health

Read-only

Inspect installed agy version, authentication, and supported capabilities to diagnose configuration or setup issues.

Instructions

Inspect installed agy version, authentication and supported capabilities.

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_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`error`	No
`version`	No
`installed`	No
`capabilities`	No
`authenticated`	No
`integrationApproval`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 which facets are checked (version, auth, capabilities), but says nothing about cost, latency, or side effects like cache refresh — adequate but not rich.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the inspected facets. No filler, though it is terse enough that it could have afforded one clause of usage context.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, so the coverage of what is inspected is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Only usage routing to sibling diagnostics is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the description adds no contradictory parameter claims.

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 ('Inspect') and enumerates the resource facets: installed agy version, authentication, and supported capabilities. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like antigravity_status or antigravity_usage, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It is only implied by the word 'Inspect' that this is a diagnostic/health probe, and there is no indication of when to prefer it over antigravity_status or the other read-oriented siblings.

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