Skip to main content
Glama
milkymap

MCP4Modal Sandbox

by milkymap

write_file_content_to_sandbox

Write content to files in a Modal sandbox for prototyping, code generation, and implementing algorithms in isolated cloud environments.

Instructions

        Writes content to a file in a Modal sandbox.
        This is useful for writing code, text, or any other content to a file in the sandbox.

        Parameters:
        - sandbox_id: ID of the target sandbox where code will be written
        - sandbox_path: Path where the code file should be created/written in the sandbox
        - content: Content to write to the file

        Returns a SandboxWriteCodeResponse containing:
        - success: Boolean indicating if code was written successfully
        - message: Descriptive message about the operation
        - file_path: Path where code was written in sandbox

        This tool is powerful for:
        - Rapid prototyping and code generation
        - Creating boilerplate code
        - Implementing algorithms from descriptions
        - Converting pseudocode to actual code
        - Generating test cases
        - Creating utility functions and helper code

        The tool will:
        1. Verify the sandbox is running
        2. Write content to specified path in sandbox
        3. Handle errors and provide detailed feedback

        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sandbox_idYes
sandbox_pathYes
contentYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main asynchronous handler function that implements the tool logic: fetches the sandbox, checks if running, writes content using a helper thread method, logs, and returns a success response.
    async def write_file_content_to_sandbox(
            self, 
            sandbox_id:str, 
            sandbox_path:str,
            content:str,
            ) -> SandboxWriteFileResponse:
        sandbox = await modal.Sandbox.from_id.aio(sandbox_id)
        sandbox_status = await sandbox.poll.aio()
        if sandbox_status is not None:
            raise ToolError(f"Sandbox {sandbox_id} is not running")
        
        # Write to sandbox using thread executor
        await self._write_sandbox_file_in_thread(sandbox, sandbox_path, content, "w")
    
        logger.info(f"Content written successfully to {sandbox_path}")
    
        return SandboxWriteFileResponse(
            success=True,
            message=f"Content written successfully to {sandbox_path}",
            file_path=sandbox_path,
        )
  • Tool registration in FastMCP, specifying name, description from ToolDescriptions, and binding the handler method.
    mcp_app.tool(
        name="write_file_content_to_sandbox",
        description=ToolDescriptions.WRITE_FILE_CONTENT_TO_SANDBOX,
    )(self.write_file_content_to_sandbox)
  • Pydantic BaseModel defining the output schema/response structure for the tool.
    class SandboxWriteFileResponse(BaseModel):
        success: bool
        message: str
        file_path: str
  • Helper function to synchronously write file content in a thread pool executor to avoid blocking the async event loop; used by the handler.
    async def _write_sandbox_file_in_thread(self, modal_sandbox, file_path: str, content, mode: str = 'wb'):
        def _sync_write():
            with modal_sandbox.open(file_path, mode) as f:
                f.write(content)
        
        loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
        return await loop.run_in_executor(self.thread_pool_executor, _sync_write)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's operational steps (verifying sandbox running, writing content, handling errors) and the return structure (success boolean, message, file_path). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'code' when the tool handles any content) and includes an overly detailed 'powerful for' list that could be condensed. The three-step operational description is useful but could be more concise.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, parameter semantics, return structure, and operational behavior. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'sandbox_id' identifies the target, 'sandbox_path' specifies where to create/write, and 'content' is what to write. The description adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema field names.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('writes content to a file') and target resource ('in a Modal sandbox'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'push_file_to_sandbox' (which likely transfers external files) and 'read_file_content_from_sandbox' (which reads rather than writes). The opening sentence provides a complete, unambiguous purpose statement.

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?

The description provides some implied usage context through the 'useful for' section listing scenarios like rapid prototyping and code generation, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'push_file_to_sandbox' or 'make_directory'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/milkymap/mcp4modal_sandbox'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server