Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codex Antigravity Subagent MCP

Codex Antigravity Subagent MCP

by zamatewi-cell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

优雅结束 Gemini 子代理长会话 (HITL)

finish_gemini_task

Terminate an active streaming task by closing its input and waiting for successful completion.

Instructions

主动结束处于 stream 模式的运行中任务，关闭 stdin 管道并等待任务优雅收敛进入 success 终态。

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "finish_gemini_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes目标 stream 运行中任务的 job_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses meaningful mechanics—closing the stdin pipe and waiting for graceful convergence—beyond what the annotations state. Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, and the description aligns with those traits. It does not cover failure or timeout behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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?

One dense sentence conveys action, condition, mechanism, and outcome with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with strong schema coverage and supporting annotations, the description is largely complete. The only notable omission is what happens if the task fails to converge or times out, along with any return-value expectations, but neither is critical for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single job_id parameter with a precise description, so the tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific operation—proactively ending a running stream-mode task—and states the goal of graceful convergence into the success terminal state. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cancel_gemini_task, which implies abrupt termination.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives a clear precondition: use it on running tasks that are in stream mode. This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with cancel_gemini_task, so a full exclusion is missing.

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