Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antigravity Codex MCP

Antigravity Codex MCP

by ustc-fyk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Request an independent Antigravity review

antigravity_review
Read-only

Initiate a read-only, evidence-based code review for a specified project, persisting the conversation for later reference.

Instructions

Start a read-only evidence-oriented review for an enabled project and persist the conversation.

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": {
      "project_root": "<project_root>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "antigravity_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNo
modelNoOptional Antigravity model slug; omit to use the account default.
effortNo
targetYes
project_rootYesAbsolute root directory of the current Codex project.
timeout_secondsNo
max_response_charsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds 'evidence-oriented' and 'persist the conversation' as behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). This is useful but minimal. It aligns with readOnlyHint (read-only) and doesn't contradict any annotation, though it doesn't disclose potential side effects like cost or throttling.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and context, making it easy to scan. Every word adds meaning, so it earns high marks for conciseness.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, report), outline prerequisites beyond 'enabled project', or mention error handling. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (2/7 params have descriptions). The description itself mentions 'for an enabled project' hinting at project_root but provides no details on target, focus, effort, or other parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent unsure of what 'target' refers to or how to use optional params.

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 action: 'Start a read-only evidence-oriented review' for a project and persist the conversation. It specifies a distinct purpose (review) that differentiates it from sibling tools like listing sessions or runs. The verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It mentions 'for an enabled project' but doesn't explain prerequisites or exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced or contrasted, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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