Get sandbox details HTTP GET /sandboxes/{name}
Get sandbox details HTTP GET /sandboxes/{name}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| include_keys | No | true: also the Docker client certificates and private key (ca_cert, client_cert, client_key). Leave it out for an agent: the Claude Code plugin's setup_project_dir writes them to disk without them passing through the model |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.3Input schema / properties / include_keysAdded value: +{
+ "description": "true: also the Docker client certificates and private key (ca_cert, client_cert, client_key). Leave it out for an agent: the Claude Code plugin's setup_project_dir writes them to disk without them passing through the model",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds nothing beyond the REST route mapping. The important behavioral caveat — that include_keys exposes Docker client certificates and private keys — appears only in the schema property, not in the description.
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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The HTTP route line is borderline redundant for an agent but is at least compact and does convey the underlying endpoint.
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?
For a tool that returns an unspecified bundle of 'details' with no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what comes back or how missing sandboxes are handled. The one thing that matters most here — the sensitive certificate exposure via include_keys — is undocumented in the description.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%: include_keys is richly documented in the schema, but name has no description at all. The URL template /sandboxes/{name} partially compensates by implying that name is the sandbox identifier, but nothing is said about format, resolution, or error behavior.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — retrieving a sandbox by its path name — which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling sandbox_summary, which likely overlaps in purpose, so an agent must guess between them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus sandbox_summary, list_sandboxes, or get_sandbox_compose. The only extra text is the raw HTTP endpoint, which does not tell an agent anything about choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.