302AI Sandbox MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as createSandbox for creation, killSandbox for destruction, and listSandboxes for querying. However, runCode and runCommand could be slightly ambiguous as both execute operations on a sandbox and return text output, though their descriptions clarify code vs. command execution.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verbNoun pattern in camelCase throughout, such as createSandbox, downloadSandboxFiles, and runCode. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools based on their naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Linux sandboxes, covering creation, execution, file operations, listing, and destruction. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for sandbox lifecycle management, including create, list, run, file handling, and destroy operations. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for updating sandbox configurations or states, but core workflows are fully supported without dead ends.
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Destroy' implies a destructive, irreversible action, but lacks details on permissions required, confirmation prompts, error handling, or side effects (e.g., if files are deleted). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and required input. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context such as what 'destroy' entails (e.g., permanent deletion), success/error responses, or safety warnings, which are essential for an agent to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'sandbox_id' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Destroy') and resource ('a sandbox by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createSandbox, listSandboxes, and runCode. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sandbox ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like downloadSandboxFiles or writeSandboxFiles, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool queries sandboxes 'associated with the current API key,' which hints at authentication context, but it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and default behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (a read operation with 2 optional parameters) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks an output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, and with no annotations, it misses behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both optional parameters (sandbox_id and sandbox_name) as filters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by stating 'If no parameters are passed, all current sandboxes will be returned,' which implies the default behavior but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query the list of sandboxes associated with the current API key.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('sandboxes'), and distinguishes it from siblings like createSandbox or killSandbox. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from listSandboxFiles, which is a similar listing operation for files within a sandbox, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides some implied usage guidance: 'If no parameters are passed, all current sandboxes will be returned,' suggesting it's used for listing sandboxes, optionally with filters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listSandboxFiles or createSandbox, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about text-only output and file handling, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read/write operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete for a tool that executes code in a sandbox.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second clarifies output limitations, and the third provides default path information. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.
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?
Given the complexity of running code in a sandbox, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and output type but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective tool selection.
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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'sandbox_id' context or 'code' format. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value.
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 clearly states the action ('Run code') and target resource ('on a specific sandbox'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'directRunCode' or 'runCommand', which appear to have similar functions, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'text output only' and referring to separate endpoints for file operations, which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'directRunCode' or 'runCommand', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports batch queries with multiple paths,' which adds useful context beyond basic functionality, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., file metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds supporting details in two sentences without any wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information about functionality and usage context.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and some usage guidance but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and output format. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
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 50% (only 'sandbox_id' has a description), and the description adds value by explaining that paths can be specified and batch queries are supported, which clarifies the 'path' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints for 'path' (e.g., whether it accepts arrays or wildcards), so it partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.
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 clearly states the action ('List files and directories') and resource ('at specified paths within a sandbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listSandboxes' (which likely lists sandboxes rather than files within them), though the context implies this distinction.
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 provides clear context for usage by mentioning it 'can be used before downloadSandboxFiles to check if the file exists,' which gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to use 'listSandboxes' instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core behavior (exporting to downloadable URLs) and constraints (supported file formats for directories), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if paths are invalid. It does not contradict annotations, as there are none.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details in two concise sentences. Each sentence adds necessary information (batch support and file format constraints) without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (exporting files with constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits like file format restrictions, but could improve by addressing output format or error handling, which are not provided elsewhere.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic parameter meanings. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'path' can be multiple directories or files for batch export and specifying file format restrictions for directories, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema implies.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Export files from a sandbox directory or file path to downloadable urls') and resource ('sandbox'), distinguishing it from siblings like listSandboxFiles (which lists files) or writeSandboxFiles (which writes files). It also specifies the scope of batch export and supported file formats for directories.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (exporting files from a sandbox to downloadable URLs) and implies usage for batch operations and specific file types in directories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like listSandboxFiles for non-export purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the sandbox automatically pauses after creation, reconnects for operations, and pauses again to avoid extra costs. It also notes that a sandbox_id is returned and required for subsequent operations. This covers important operational traits, though it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: explaining functionality, sandbox_id usage, prerequisites, and behavioral traits like pausing and cost avoidance. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some ideas, but overall, it avoids unnecessary repetition and is well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on the return value format (beyond mentioning sandbox_id) and error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent to handle responses effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add specific meaning or usage details for parameters like 'envs', 'max_alive_time', 'metadata', or 'sandbox_name' beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'max_alive_time' implicitly by discussing costs, but no explicit parameter guidance is given, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a Linux sandbox that can execute code, run commands, upload and download files, and has complete Linux functionality.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('Linux sandbox'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting that 'all other operations require the creation of a sandbox first,' except for directRunCode.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'all other operations require the creation of a sandbox first' and 'Except for directRunCode.' It implies that this is a prerequisite for most sandbox operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or detail alternatives beyond the directRunCode exception.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing the sandbox lifecycle (creation, execution, destruction) and file export behavior (compression for multiple files). However, it lacks details on error handling, security implications, resource limits, or output format, which are critical for a code execution tool. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by optional features and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value: the first explains the main workflow, the second details file export behavior, and the third provides critical usage context. It's efficiently structured with zero wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (code execution with sandbox management) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level workflow and key behavioral traits but lacks details on error responses, output structure, or security constraints. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more information would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'is_download' parameter's purpose (exporting files) and contextualizing the tool's ephemeral nature, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('creates', 'executes', 'destroys') and resources ('sandbox', 'code'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing its single-use, ephemeral nature compared to continuous sandbox operations. It explicitly mentions the optional file export functionality, which further differentiates it from basic execution tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Recommended for use cases that don't require continuous sandbox operations'), which implicitly suggests alternatives like 'createSandbox' or 'runCode' for ongoing operations. It also clarifies the optional file export feature's purpose, helping users decide when to enable the 'is_download' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: text-only output (no file returns), sandbox-specific execution, and the need for separate endpoints for file results. However, it doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, or potential side effects of arbitrary command execution.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states core functionality, second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.
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 command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about output format and file handling limitations. However, it doesn't address potential risks, error handling, or execution constraints beyond the timeout parameter documented in the schema.
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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.
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 clearly states the specific action ('run a command line command'), target resource ('on a specific linux sandbox'), and output format ('returns text output only'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning separate endpoints for file operations, contrasting with tools like downloadSandboxFiles and writeSandboxFiles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'For operations that generate files, you'll need to use separate file viewing and download endpoints.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like downloadSandboxFiles and listSandboxFiles, and implies this tool is for command execution only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: batch import support, overwriting of existing files, automatic creation of non-existent directories, and the prerequisite of sandbox creation. This covers mutation, side effects, and prerequisites, though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details, all in four concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds critical information (batch support, overwrite behavior, directory creation, prerequisite), making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with prerequisites) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent, slightly reducing completeness.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('sandbox_id' and 'file_list') and their nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Import files from public URLs into a sandbox') and resource ('sandbox'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'createSandbox' (creation), 'downloadSandboxFiles' (export), and 'listSandboxFiles' (listing). It includes the verb 'import' and specifies the source ('public URLs'), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool: 'You must create a sandbox before calling this tool.' It also implies usage for batch imports and overwriting existing files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'downloadSandboxFiles' for export instead), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![302_sandbox_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/302ai/302_sandbox_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/302ai/302_sandbox_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![302_sandbox_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/302ai/302_sandbox_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/302ai/302_sandbox_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/302ai/302_sandbox_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server