Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antigravity MCP Server

Antigravity MCP Server

by x51xxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

review-changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs a code review on the current repository's changes by collecting the git diff and building a structured prompt for Antigravity.

Instructions

Run a code review against the current repository using Antigravity (collects git diff + structured review prompt).

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": "review-changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoReview changes against a specific base branch (e.g., "main", "develop")
modelNoOptional model override. Known: Gemini 4 Hydrogen (Low), Gemini 4 Hydrogen (Medium), Gemini 4 Hydrogen (High), Gemini 4 Hydrogen (XHigh), Gemini 4 Argon (Low), Gemini 4 Argon (Medium), Gemini 4 Argon (High), Gemini 4 Carbon (Low), Gemini 4 Carbon (Medium), Gemini 4 Carbon (High), Orchestrator (Argon), Orchestrator (Carbon), Gemini 3.8 Flash (Low), Gemini 3.8 Flash (Medium), Gemini 3.8 Flash (High), Claude Opus 5.5 (Low), Claude Opus 5.5 (Medium), Claude Opus 5.5 (High), Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low), Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Medium), Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High), GPT-OSS 120B (Medium). If omitted, uses your Antigravity CLI default.
titleNoOptional title for the review summary
commitNoReview changes introduced by a specific commit SHA
effortNoReasoning effort (--effort). Supported levels depend on the model — see list-models. Use with a base model ID (e.g. gemini-4-hydrogen); not supported by Orchestrator.
promptNoCustom review instructions or focus areas (optional)
timeoutNoMaximum execution time in milliseconds
workingDirNoWorking directory to run the review in
uncommittedNoReview staged + unstaged + untracked changes (working tree)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that the tool shells out to a model and assembles a git diff plus prompt. It stops short of saying whether the call is long-running or costly, what the response looks like, or how the timeout parameter interacts with model effort.

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 an informative parenthetical; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical is slightly dense in naming the mechanism rather than the outcome, but overall the structure is tight and readable.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the definition is thin on outcomes — it never states what a review returns (a summary, findings, a report file). It also leaves the interplay between base, commit, and uncommitted unexplained, which matters because these are mutually shaping scoping modes. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum for effort and the model list. The description only implicitly signals that scoping options exist by naming the git-diff collection step; it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: "Run a code review against the current repository." The parenthetical clarifies the mechanism (collects git diff + structured review prompt via Antigravity). It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like ask-antigravity or delegate-antigravity, which an agent might reasonably consider for a similar task.

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 implied by the name and phrasing — use this when you want a review of pending repository changes. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer ask-antigravity or delegate-antigravity, and no guidance on choosing among the scoping parameters (base, commit, uncommitted) for different review scenarios.

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