antigravity_modelsLists the models your Antigravity plan can use and explains how to pass a valid model ID to the antigravity tool for delegated tasks.
List the models your Antigravity plan can use. Pass an id as model to the antigravity tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are scoped to the caller's plan, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or whether the list can change over time. Incremental value over annotations is modest.
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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the chaining instruction follows immediately; every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it only vaguely does ('list the models'). For a tiny discovery tool the gap is small, but an agent still lacks any sense of the returned fields (id, name, capabilities) or list size.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Mentioning `model` refers to the sibling tool's parameter, not this one, so no credit or penalty either way.
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+resource: listing models available to the Antigravity plan. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `antigravity` tool by naming that tool as the consumer of the ids returned. The scope word 'your Antigravity plan' is a little fuzzy but the intent is unambiguous.
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 second sentence gives concrete downstream usage: take an id from this output and pass it as `model` to the `antigravity` tool. That is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to call this (e.g., when the model id is already known), so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.