Antigravity MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Antigravity task status

antigravity_status

Read-only

Retrieve a task's metadata, current status, process ID, and isolated copy path by task ID to monitor delegated coding tasks.

Instructions

Return task metadata, status, process ID and isolated copy path when available.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context on what fields come back and the 'when available' caveat signaling optional/absent fields, which is more than the annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and enumerates the returned fields. No filler or redundancy, though it is lean enough to leave gaps rather than being fully economical.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is sibling routing: with 22 peers including antigravity_tasks and antigravity_result, the definition does not say when this status call wins.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented taskId parameter. It implies the input is a task but adds no format or constraint detail; the self-explanatory name plus the uuid format in the schema keep this at a baseline 3.

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 ('Return') and resource ('task metadata, status, process ID and isolated copy path'), making the tool's output scope clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like antigravity_tasks or antigravity_result, leaving the agent to infer which retrieval surface to use.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set (antigravity_tasks, antigravity_result, antigravity_events, antigravity_sessions) where routing matters. Nothing tells the agent whether this is for a single task ID versus a listing.

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