Skip to main content
Glama

Show sandbox

sandbox_show
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a sandbox's status, project, template, size, and expiry by ID; access is verified for the current user.

Instructions

Read a sandbox's status (running, pausing, paused, resuming, ...), project, template, size and expiry. The platform checks the current user's access to this ID.

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>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sandboxIdYesExact sandbox ID from sandbox_create or sandbox_list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that access to the ID is checked by the platform and enumerates the status fields returned. It does not describe behavior when the sandbox is missing or access is denied.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the read action and the fields returned, with no filler. The truncated status list ('running, pausing, paused, resuming, ...') is slightly imprecise but compact.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, this is nearly complete: it conveys what is read and the authorization check. Missing only not-found/unauthorized behavior and any mention of output shape beyond the listed fields.

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%, and the sandboxId field already explains it must be an exact ID from sandbox_create or sandbox_list. The description adds only the access-check note on 'this ID' and does not add format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (Read) and resource (sandbox) and enumerates the fields returned (status, project, template, size, expiry). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sandbox_list by operating on one sandbox, but never names or contrasts with sibling tools.

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 implied by 'Read a sandbox's status ...' and the schema note that sandboxId comes from sandbox_create or sandbox_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance versus siblings like sandbox_list.

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