List tracked Antigravity sessions or forget specific ones, including clearing all with '*'. Manage session tracking to keep your workspace clean.
查看或遗忘本服务器跟踪的 Antigravity 会话，并列出 CLI 本地已有的会话。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | list 列出跟踪的会话；forget 遗忘指定会话，传 '*' 清空全部。 | list |
| session | No | action=forget 时的会话名；'*' 表示清空全部跟踪的会话。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the actions (view/forget/list) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether forgetting is permanent, if it affects server state, or if it requires special permissions). The phrase 'list sessions that exist locally on the CLI' adds some behavior but is vague about output and consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core actions. It is efficient and easy to parse, with no filler. Slightly unclear about the relationship between 'view or forget' and 'list local sessions', but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits return values and edge cases (e.g., what happens when '*' is passed with forget). It provides enough to start using it, but not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. It aligns with the schema's action/session definitions but doesn't enhance them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: viewing or forgetting server-tracked Antigravity sessions, plus listing CLI-local sessions. This distinguishes it from siblings which target jobs, status, etc. The resource (sessions) and verb (view/forget/list) are specific, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (for session management), but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like antigravity_job or antigravity_status. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.