Retrieve this agent's sandbox webhook endpoints, optionally filtered by team, to see active or shared endpoints. Empty until the sandbox is started.
List this agent's sandbox endpoints. Empty until create_endpoint starts the sandbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Team id or name (case-insensitive). Keeps endpoints shared with you from that team and endpoints you own that are shared with it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one meaningful behavioral trait: the tool returns an empty list until create_endpoint starts the sandbox, which prevents misinterpreting an empty response. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or filtering behavior for the optional team parameter.
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 sentences with zero waste: the purpose statement comes first, and the lifecycle caveat follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 simple read-only list tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key state-dependency nuance. Only minor gaps remain (pagination, ordering), which are low-impact here.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema fully documents the team filter's scoping semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (list) and resource (sandbox endpoints) with the scope narrowed to 'this agent's'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_endpoint (single endpoint) besides the implied list/single distinction, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
The lifecycle note 'Empty until create_endpoint starts the sandbox' gives useful operational context — the agent knows an empty result is expected pre-startup rather than an error. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_endpoint or list_requests for enumerating resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.