mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most computer_* tools have clearly distinct lifecycle actions (list, create, restart, reset, delete), and sandbox_exec is distinct as the only command-execution tool. However, computer_dashboard overlaps in purpose by offering an interactive UI for the same operations, and the relationship between sandbox_exec and the managed computers is ambiguous.
Naming Consistency3/5
The computer_* tools follow a consistent verb pattern (list, create, restart, factory_reset, delete), but sandbox_exec uses a different prefix and computer_dashboard is a noun, breaking the verb_noun consistency. The mixed prefixes and one non-verb make the naming only moderately predictable.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a server focused on sandbox/computer VM management. Each tool addresses a core lifecycle or execution need without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness2/5
The lifecycle coverage is decent (create, list, restart, reset, delete), but there is no way to programmatically execute commands on a specific computer; sandbox_exec appears to target a generic sandbox rather than the managed computers. Missing get/status for individual computers also creates a dead end for inspection.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists dashboard capabilities but fails to disclose what opening the dashboard entails (e.g., launches a UI, returns a URL, blocks execution) or any side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the dashboard's capabilities. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how it behaves. It lists capabilities but omits details about the dashboard interface, output format, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose instead of parameter details.
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 states the tool opens an interactive dashboard for managing computers, listing concrete capabilities (listing, running commands, restarting, deleting). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual actions, as it is the aggregator dashboard.
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 given on when to use the dashboard versus individual sibling tools like computer_list or sandbox_exec. The description implies a general use case but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state 'permanently delete' and 'all of its writable state,' which are critical. However, it lacks details about side effects, reversibility beyond 'permanently,' or any prerequisites/permissions.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key fact (permanent deletion) and scoping ('writable state'). Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?
For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's impact. It could mention that the action is irreversible or that it removes the computer from management, but 'permanently' and 'all writable state' largely cover the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, including its description. The tool description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (permanently delete), the resource (a computer), and the scope (all of its writable state). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like computer_restart and computer_factory_reset by emphasizing permanence and deletion of state.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate (e.g., removing a computer entirely) or when other tools like computer_factory_reset should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope, omitting details about return format, pagination, authentication, or side effects. For a list tool, this is minimally acceptable but adds little beyond the name.
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 a single concise sentence stating the exact action, resource, and scope, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what fields are returned or the need to select a backend, but the core use case is clearly covered.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('sandbox computers') and scope ('managed by the selected backend'). It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools like create, delete, restart, and dashboard by focusing on inventory listing.
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 clearly implies a read-only list action but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over computer_dashboard or when to use sandbox_exec. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive action ('erase') and the restoration process, which informs the agent of the irreversible nature. However, it omits details like downtime or that all data will be lost beyond 'writable filesystem', which is slightly implicit.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
The tool has a simple parameter set and no output schema, so the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks additional context such as the irreversibility of the operation, potential downtime, or any prerequisites, which would be valuable for a destructive action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter (computer_id), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('erase') and resource ('computer's writable filesystem'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like computer_restart (which restarts) and computer_delete (which removes the computer). It precisely states the factory reset action.
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 clearly implies when to use it (to reset a computer to its base state), but it does not explicitly specify exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest context, but the description itself offers no direct 'use this instead of' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the temporary/permanent distinction and the ID generation behavior, but it does not explain other important aspects such as required permissions, what a 'sandbox computer' entails, or the return format beyond the slug. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler or repetition. Every clause adds value.
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?
For a simple create tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key ID behavior. However, it does not state the exact return value beyond the slug, and it lacks details about side effects, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'readable random slug' is redundant with the schema's description of computer_id. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('temporary or permanent sandbox computer'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (exec, list, restart, etc.) by specifying the creation action. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to create a sandbox computer) and hints at the temporary/permanent choice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It proactively discloses that the operation does not erase the writable filesystem, which is a key behavioral guarantee. It does not mention other behavioral aspects like graceful vs. forced restart, but for this simple operation, the main concern (data loss) is addressed.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and the key qualifier. It has zero fluff and is perfectly front-loaded.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and the most important behavioral characteristic (non-destructive restart). It could have elaborated on prerequisites or effects on running processes, but the provided information is adequate for a simple restart tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'computer_id' with a clear description ('Computer slug to restart'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the schema coverage guideline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Restart') and resource ('computer'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'computer_factory_reset' by stating 'without erasing its writable filesystem'. This makes the tool's purpose clear and differentiates it from similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for restarting while preserving the filesystem, which implies it should be used over factory reset when data retention is desired. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it just misses a top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: isolation, bash execution, statelessness between calls (but filesystem persistence), and a 120-second default timeout. It does not mention the temporary/computer_id lifecycle behavior or how output is returned, hence a 4 rather than 5.
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 concise, with two focused paragraphs. Every sentence adds valuable information: purpose, execution environment, state persistence, usage tips, stdin, and timeout. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
While the description covers execution context well, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values, exit codes, or output capture. Additionally, the temporary and computer_id parameters are not explained in the description, leaving these lifecycle aspects under-specified. This is a clear gap for a command-execution tool.
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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the default timeout (120 seconds), how to use 'stdin' for escaping issues, and how working_directory can be used to control execution context. This lifts it to a 4.
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 opens with 'Execute a shell command in an isolated Debian Linux sandbox,' which clearly states a specific action and resource. It further clarifies that commands run in bash, distinguishing it from the sibling computer-management tools that do not execute commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage instructions, such as using 'working_directory' or chaining commands with '&&' to control execution context, and using 'stdin' to safely pass data. It also notes the default timeout and how to override it. However, it does not mention alternatives among sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/flujo-app/mcp-sandbox-computer-vm-for-ai'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server