Antigravity MCP Bridge

create_full_project

Create an entire project directory, write all code files, and run setup/test commands in a single tool call with one permission confirmation.

Instructions

Creates an entire project directory, writes all code files, and runs initial setup/test commands in a SINGLE tool call with 1 permission confirmation. Parameters: project_name: Name of the project folder to create. files: Dictionary of {"rel/path/filename.ext": "file content"} setup_commands: Optional list of commands to run inside the new project (e.g. ["pip install -r requirements.txt", "python test.py"]) working_dir: Parent directory where project folder will be created (defaults to CWD).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	Yes
`source`	No
`working_dir`	No
`project_name`	Yes
`setup_commands`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the side effects (creating directory, writing files, running commands) and mentions the permission confirmation, but does not disclose potential risks like overwriting existing files or the impact of running arbitrary setup commands.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear two-sentence overview followed by a flat parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and five parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action, but misses important context like return values, error conditions, and interaction with existing files—context that would be valuable for an agent deciding to invoke this powerful tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only paraphrases parameter names. It adds no semantic depth beyond what the parameter names imply. The 'files' parameter's map structure and the behavior of 'setup_commands' are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Creates an entire project directory, writes all code files, and runs initial setup/test commands') and distinguishes it from sibling file-writing tools by emphasizing it does all in one call with one permission confirmation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the all-in-one project creation tool versus the granular write_file/edit_file/batch_write_files siblings. It could be more explicit about when to choose this over batch_write_files, but the single-call permission confirmation hint gives practical guidance.

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