List your sandbox: calculators, skills, and recent submissions with their review status.
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": "list_sandbox"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that results are user-scoped ('your sandbox') and includes review status, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what the return shape looks like.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful scope: sandbox, calculators, skills, recent submissions, and review status.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what is listed and that review status is included. It could be stronger by clarifying its relationship to list_published and whether results are paginated.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: list the user's sandbox. It further enumerates what is returned: calculators, skills, and recent submissions with review status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_published, but the 'your sandbox' scoping is clear.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you want to see your sandbox contents and review statuses. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_published or other list tools, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.