Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antigravity-plugin-codex

antigravity-plugin-codex

by irrumi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

antigravity_cancel

Cancel a task in this MCP session by taskId to release in-memory results and keep the workspace unchanged.

Instructions

cancel a task in this MCP server session. Forget releases in-memory results, preserves workspace.

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_cancel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that in-memory results are released while the workspace is preserved, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it is garbled and omits state/idempotency details. No annotation contradiction.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is ambiguous and poorly worded ('Forget releases in-memory results, preserves workspace'), so not every sentence cleanly earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutating, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description leaves the agent without taskId semantics, the resulting task state, or idempotency behavior. It is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

There is one required parameter (taskId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what taskId is or where it comes from. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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+resource ('cancel a task') scoped to 'this MCP server session', which is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings. The sideline reference to 'Forget' muddies it slightly, but the core purpose is legible.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no condition that selects this over antigravity_forget or antigravity_status. The second sentence hints at a relationship with forget but never states when one should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools