Skip to main content
Glama

profile_inspect

Inspect a sandbox profile to review its permissions, symlinks, runtime PIDs, and Evidence record, helping diagnose isolation or access issues.

Instructions

Inspect one sandbox profile, its permissions, symlinks, runtime PIDs, and Evidence record.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "profile_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProfile slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only reveals what data is surfaced. It never states that the operation is non-mutating, whether it touches live runtime state (reading PIDs and symlinks could imply a running sandbox), what happens if the profile does not exist, or any permission/authorization requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned artifacts are stated up front. The flat enumeration is efficient but slightly cryptic ("Evidence record" is left unexplained), keeping it from a 5.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned artifacts so the agent knows what to expect. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should also confirm the read-only nature and note what happens when the named profile is absent.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines "name" as the profile slug, so the description cannot add much. It reinforces that the argument selects exactly one profile, but adds no format, slug-syntax, or lookup-failure semantics.

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?

"Inspect one sandbox profile" gives a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration (permissions, symlinks, runtime PIDs, Evidence record) tells the agent exactly what the call yields. The word "one" implicitly contrasts it with the list-style sibling profile_list, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular "one sandbox profile" suggests a single-item drill-down as opposed to a list or a mutating operation like profile_update/profile_delete. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over profile_list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.