Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antigravity MCP Server

Antigravity MCP Server

by x51xxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Expose Prometheus-formatted operational data for the Antigravity MCP server so monitoring systems can scrape server status and usage.

Instructions

Expose Prometheus-formatted metrics for Antigravity MCP server

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the output format (Prometheus text exposition), but never clarifies the delivery mechanism — whether metrics are returned inline in the tool result or served from an HTTP endpoint, which is the main behavioral unknown for scraper tooling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is terse but not under-specified for a no-argument tool, and every word carries information.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and 'Prometheus-formatted' does most of that work. However, for a monitoring endpoint it leaves open how the payload is exposed and what an agent would do with it, which is a meaningful gap for an otherwise simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to obtain the metrics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Expose') and resource ('Prometheus-formatted metrics') plus the owning server, so the agent knows this is a metrics-export tool. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'health' or 'ping', which an agent could plausibly confuse with observability tooling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the word 'metrics' and the Prometheus format — an agent can infer it is for monitoring/scraping rather than for task work. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to monitoring alternatives such as 'health'.

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