Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sandbox-mcp

sandbox-mcp

by bird
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

python

Execute Python code in an isolated Linux VM sandbox. Control timeout and sandbox selection for secure script execution.

Instructions

Execute Python code in the sandbox (python3 is pre-installed in the default mcp-dev image).

Args: code: Python code to execute. timeout: Max seconds to wait (default 30). sandbox: Named sandbox to use (default "default")

Returns: Script output with stdout, stderr, exit code, and execution time.

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": "python"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
timeoutNo
sandboxNodefault

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It mentions sandbox isolation and python3, but does not disclose potential side effects, resource limits, or security boundaries, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a logical structure: purpose statement followed by an Args list and Returns summary. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity, the description covers core aspects: purpose, parameters, and return values. It could elaborate on sandbox semantics or execution environment, but overall it is sufficient for basic use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing clear explanations for each parameter, including defaults for timeout and sandbox. Additional details like valid sandbox names or timeout behavior could improve it.

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 it executes Python code in a sandbox, specifying python3 pre-installation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'exec' by focusing on Python, but could more explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'exec' or 'install'. The description does not mention scenarios or preconditions.

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