Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lizard MCP

Lizard MCP

Official
by lizard-build
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete sandbox

sandbox_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a specified sandbox and its files to clean up task environments; get user approval first. Attached volumes, projects, and app services remain intact.

Instructions

Permanently destroy one sandbox and all its files (an attached volume stays). Get the user's approval before calling. Use this to clean up a sandbox created for a task. Does not delete its project or any app services.

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": {
      "sandboxId": "<sandboxId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYes
sandboxIdYesExact sandbox ID from sandbox_create or sandbox_list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the details an agent actually needs: permanence, that all files inside the sandbox are destroyed, that an attached volume survives, and that a human approval step is required first. That is meaningful context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the approval requirement, then the use case, then the exclusions. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations, this covers destruction scope, surviving resources, and the approval prerequisite, which is what an agent needs before calling. The only omission is any mention of the required confirm flag or what the call returns on success/failure.

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 coverage is 50%: sandboxId is documented in-schema with its source, while 'confirm' is only a const true with no prose. The description never mentions the confirm gate, which is the one non-obvious argument, so it adds nothing over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently destroy one sandbox and all its files') and immediately bounds the blast radius with '(an attached volume stays)'. It also distinguishes itself from project_delete and service_delete by saying it does not delete the project or app services.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('clean up a sandbox created for a task') plus an explicit when-not ('Does not delete its project or any app services'), which implicitly routes project-level teardown to project_delete. It doesn't name that sibling tool outright, keeping it just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools