agent-sandbox-platform

execute_in_sandbox

Execute untrusted shell commands or code in an isolated, non-root Docker sandbox with CPU/memory limits and timeout enforcement.

Instructions

Executes untrusted shell commands or code payloads inside an isolated, non-root ephemeral Docker container with strict CPU/memory limits and timeout enforcement.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "execute_in_sandbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The code or shell command to execute inside the sandbox
`timeoutMs`	No	Execution deadline in milliseconds (default: 5000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important traits: isolated, non-root, ephemeral Docker container, strict CPU/memory limits, and timeout enforcement. It stops short of covering network access, filesystem persistence, or output behavior, but the safety profile is substantially clear.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, packing the key execution context and safety constraints efficiently.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry extra weight. It explains the execution environment and limits well but omits what the tool returns (stdout, stderr, exit code) and how failures are reported, which is essential for an execution tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented by the input schema. The description mentions timeout enforcement, mirroring timeoutMs, but adds no extra syntax, format, or usage detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: executing untrusted shell commands or code payloads inside an isolated sandbox. It is clearly distinct from validate_sandbox_policy by action, but it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 phrase 'untrusted shell commands or code payloads' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus validate_sandbox_policy or when not to use it. No prerequisites, alternatives, or boundaries are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server