Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vmware-sandbox-mcp

vmware-sandbox-mcp

by rumenjordanov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sandbox_copy_out

Copy files or folders from a sandbox to your computer's transfer folder so results can be saved before the sandbox is destroyed.

Instructions

Copy a file or a whole folder from a sandbox to the user's computer.

Use this to save results (a report, a built program, a log, an output folder) before destroying the sandbox, since everything inside a sandbox is lost when it is destroyed. Things can only be written inside the user's designated transfer folder.

guest_path: full path of the file or folder inside the sandbox (for example "/home/debian/out.txt" or "/home/debian/build"). host_path: where to save it, relative to the transfer folder (for example "results/out.txt" or "results/build"). Missing folders are created; existing files with the same names are replaced. Paths that leave the transfer folder are rejected.

When copying a folder, its contents are placed inside host_path. Links and files whose names are not valid on the user's computer are left out; the reply says how many. Returns the full path where it was saved, the number of files and the size.

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": {
      "sandbox_id": "<sandbox_id>",
      "guest_path": "<guest_path>",
      "host_path": "<host_path>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_copy_out"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
host_pathYes
guest_pathYes
sandbox_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the transfer-folder write restriction, path rejection, auto-creation of missing folders, silent replacement of existing files, folder-content semantics, skipping of links/invalid filenames with a reported count, and a summary of the response payload.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then usage, then parameter guidance, and every sentence carries information. Minor redundancy between "Things can only be written inside the user's designated transfer folder" and "Paths that leave the transfer folder are rejected," but the repetition reinforces a safety constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the safety constraint, both path parameters, folder-vs-file behavior, edge cases, and return contents; with an output schema present, the brief return summary is sufficient rather than necessary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: guest_path and host_path are each defined with concrete example values, host_path is clarified as relative to the transfer folder, and the folder-copy interpretation of host_path is spelled out. Only sandbox_id is left to inference, which is trivially obvious from context.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource pair ("Copy a file or a whole folder from a sandbox to the user's computer") and makes the direction of transfer unambiguous, distinguishing it from sandbox_copy_in without needing to name the sibling.

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 a clear use case — saving results before destroying the sandbox — and explains the consequence of not doing so. It does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools, but the timing guidance is actionable on its own.

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