Inspect the local Antigravity GUI to check the active model, busy state, and unsent draft, so you can verify real interface status without CLI or API fallback.
Inspect the real local Antigravity GUI: current model, busy state, and unsent draft. No CLI or API fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and 'No CLI or API fallback' signals it fails if the GUI is unavailable, which is useful context. It does not state permission requirements, latency, whether it can disturb the running GUI, or whether the unsent draft is sensitive to read.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed immediately by the fields returned and the no-fallback constraint. No filler sentences.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the note about no fallback is a real completeness gain. However, the undocumented target_id and the absence of routing guidance against the dense sibling set leave the definition only minimally sufficient.
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 0% and the single optional 'target_id' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no guidance on what a target identifies (window? session? profile?) or what omitting it does.
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?
States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('the real local Antigravity GUI') plus the exact fields examined: current model, busy state, unsent draft. 'No CLI or API fallback' implicitly separates it from the API-driven siblings, though it never names antigravity_gui_task_status or codex_gui_status directly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'No CLI or API fallback' suggests this is the tool to use when you need true GUI state rather than an API surface. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many GUI/task siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.