Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sandbox-mcp

sandbox-mcp

by bird
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

install

Install packages in an isolated Linux VM sandbox using Alpine's apk package manager. Specify package names and optional sandbox name.

Instructions

Install packages in the sandbox using apk (Alpine package manager).

Args: packages: Space-separated package names (e.g., "python3 nodejs git curl") sandbox: Named sandbox to use (default "default")

Returns: Installation result.

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": {
      "packages": "<packages>"
    },
    "name": "install"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packagesYes
sandboxNodefault

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions using apk but does not disclose side effects (e.g., system changes), permissions required, or failure behavior. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers args and returns without unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections).

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers basics. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects, making it adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains 'packages' as space-separated names and 'sandbox' as named with default. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: install packages using apk in a sandbox. It specifies the resource (packages) and context (sandbox), distinguishing it from sibling tools like spawn or exec.

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 installing packages but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools might be better.

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