List all Docker sandboxes managed by Purgatory (p7y) so you can inspect available coding-agent environments before deploying, accessing, or managing them.
List all sandboxes HTTP GET /sandboxes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description carries little extra burden. What it does add ('HTTP GET /sandboxes') is transport detail rather than agent-relevant behavior, and it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what a listing entry contains.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded: the action and resource come first, followed by the endpoint. Nothing is padded, though the raw HTTP verb line is arguably redundant for an agent that already has the name and annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is the minimum viable: it states what is listed but not how results are shaped or bounded (pagination, ordering, summary vs. detail). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description is consistent with the empty schema.
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?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ('List all sandboxes'), so an agent immediately knows the operation and the object it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from neighboring listing tools such as sandbox_summary or list_sandbox_volumes, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: the name and one-line description make it obvious this is the browse-all endpoint, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over sandbox_summary or get_sandbox. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.