Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sandbox-mcp

sandbox-mcp

by bird
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_clone

Clone a git repository into an isolated sandbox environment, including private repos via auth token and shallow cloning for speed.

Instructions

Clone a git repository into the sandbox.

Args: repo: Repository URL (e.g., "https://github.com/user/repo.git") branch: Branch to clone (default: repo's default branch) token: Optional auth token for private repos (injected securely, not in URL or history) path: Parent directory for clone (default: /workspace) shallow: If True, clone with --depth 1 for speed (default: True) sandbox: Named sandbox to use (default "default")

Returns: Clone result with repo info.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "git_clone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
branchNo
tokenNo
pathNo/workspace
shallowNo
sandboxNodefault

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers key behaviors: cloning into sandbox, token security, shallow clone default, and return value. However, it omits potential side effects like overwriting existing directories.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with the action sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameter details adequately. With an output schema present, the return value summary is sufficient. However, error handling or sandbox prerequisites could be mentioned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema (0% coverage) by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and examples (e.g., repo URL format, token injection note).

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 'Clone a git repository into the sandbox.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like the generic 'clone' tool.

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 for git repos and mentions optional features (branch, token, shallow), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites exist.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools