Lists a sandbox's p9m registry images and their secret-scan results, so you can check available images and identify exposed secrets before deploying.
The sandbox's images in the p9m registry, with secret-scan results HTTP GET /sandboxes/{name}/registry
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's main added value is that responses include secret-scan results and that this maps to GET /sandboxes/{name}/registry. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-registry behavior, or the shape of the secret-scan data.
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 with no filler; the resource description comes first and the HTTP method/path follows as supporting detail. Nothing is redundant, though the endpoint line is mildly technical for an agent-facing description.
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 one-parameter read-only listing with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, content (images plus secret-scan results), and the underlying endpoint. Only the exact return structure is missing, which is a modest gap for this complexity level.
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 0% and the single required parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by giving the endpoint /sandboxes/{name}/registry, which makes clear the name is the sandbox identifier rather than an image name — a genuinely useful disambiguation, though nothing more.
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?
The description names a specific resource (the sandbox's images in the p9m registry) and a distinguishing attribute (secret-scan results), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the 'list' action is only inferable from the tool name. It implicitly distinguishes from delete_sandbox_image_version by being read-oriented, but never says so.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for image-related tasks. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the resource phrase in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.