Retrieve a paginated list of sandboxes for your workspace, including an option to show terminated ones.
List sandboxes for the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| include_terminated | No | Include terminated sandboxes (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as workspace scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior or the effect of include_terminated beyond what the parameter schema already states. With annotations present, the score is moderate but not higher.
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 fluff or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could include a second sentence about pagination or sibling differentiation without becoming bloated.
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?
Given the existence of a near-identical sibling tool and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, termination filtering, or return shape, and no output schema is provided. An agent selecting or invoking this tool would need to consult other sources or guess important calling conventions.
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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is only 33% (only include_terminated has a description), and page_size/page_token lack descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining pagination, default page size, token format, or how include_terminated changes results, leaving agents to guess from parameter names.
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 sandboxes for the workspace.' It clearly identifies the action and scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool tenki_list_workspace_sandboxes, which appears to describe the same operation, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tenki_list_workspace_sandboxes or other list tools. It does not mention pagination usage, default behavior for include_terminated, or any context indicating when this list should be preferred. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.