roki_sandbox_infoWhether the sandbox playground is enabled here, which operations it accepts, its limits, and the sandbox test cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds context about the specific content returned (enabled status, operations, limits, test cards) without contradicting annotations.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or repetition.
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 parameterless informational tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool reports. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently sets expectations about the returned information.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 clearly states the resource (sandbox playground) and the specific information it provides: whether it's enabled, accepted operations, limits, and test cards. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roki_sandbox_try and roki_status.
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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need sandbox capabilities information) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No direct 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from searching docs to validating requests to verifying webhook signatures. Even similarly named tools like roki_get_integration_example and roki_scaffold_integration are differentiated by 'complete runnable' vs 'skeleton'.
Tools mostly follow a roki_verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, validate, verify), but a few deviate with noun-only names like roki_status and roki_sandbox_info. The prefix and clear verbs make the pattern predictable overall.
18 tools is on the heavy side, but each serves a distinct role in the integration workflow covered by this server. The count is justified given the breadth of documentation, validation, sandbox, and example generation features.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an integration: discovery (search_docs, list_operations), learning (guides, examples, schemas), validation (validate_request), sandbox testing (sandbox_try), verification (verify_webhook_signature), and post-integration auditing. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.