Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lizard MCP

Lizard MCP

Official
by lizard-build
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List sandboxes

sandbox_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Lizard Sandboxes in a specified project so you can retrieve their IDs for sandbox tool operations; these resources are separate from app services.

Instructions

List Lizard Sandboxes in an explicit project. Use the returned IDs with sandbox tools; these resources are separate from 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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context (separate resource domain, IDs reusable by other sandbox tools) but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume for what could be a large list.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the follow-on usage note. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately implies the return shape (a list of sandboxes whose IDs feed other sandbox tools). The only real gap is the unexplained project identifier format, which is a parameter-level rather than contextual omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely fails to. 'In an explicit project' signals that project scoping is mandatory but never says whether the value is a name, slug, or ID, nor gives format or an example. The agent is left to guess the identifier form from sibling tools.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Lizard Sandboxes') plus a scope ('in an explicit project'), so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. It also pre-empts confusion with the service_* family by noting these resources are separate from app services, though it doesn't distinguish itself from near-siblings like sandbox_snapshot_list or sandbox_list_files.

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?

'Use the returned IDs with sandbox tools' gives a clear next-step workflow, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over sandbox_show or the other listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the services distinction.

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