Skip to main content
Glama
rhishi99

agy-headless-bridge MCP server

by rhishi99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to agy-headless-bridge MCP server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • agy-mcp

      Boulea7
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Wraps Google Antigravity CLI into 11 typed MCP tools, enabling any MCP client to invoke agy for code review, prototyping, execution, and long-running tasks.
      11
      23
      MIT

    • agymcp

      leologoli
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Wraps the Antigravity CLI (agy) as an MCP server, enabling Claude Code and other MCP clients to execute AI tasks and manage conversations via the agy command.
      1
      -

    • antigravity-mcp

      alvarosw
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible coding agents to run the local Antigravity CLI as a coding agent, manage conversation context and common options, and inspect usage, quota, models, version, help, and read-only slash commands.
      39 npm
      MIT

    • Antigravity MCP Server

      Ayato964
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables external agents like Gemini Spark to control Google Antigravity CLI (agy) via Model Context Protocol, supporting multimodal inputs and automatic session management.
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools are clearly described: agy_ask for focused tasks and agy_research for deep research. While both use the same underlying CLI, their purposes are distinct enough that an agent should not confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent agy_verb naming pattern with snake_case, making the intention clear and predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels very limited. For a CLI bridge, one would expect more operations like configuration, listing, result retrieval, etc. The count is at the low end of acceptable for a minimal server.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is extremely sparse. There are no tools for managing sessions, inspecting state, or handling errors, which are important for a headless bridge. Agents may hit dead ends without broader coverage.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources