Audit and run untrusted Python code in an ephemeral sandbox, using static AST checks to block unsafe operations before execution.
Executes untrusted Python snippets inside an ephemeral sandbox with static AST safety auditing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Python code to audit and run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the environment is ephemeral (no persisted state) and code is statically audited before running, implying unsafe code may be rejected. However, it omits timeouts, resource/network limits, what happens on audit failure, and the return format.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the input, and the two key mechanisms with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool that executes untrusted code with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover return values and sandbox limits. It conveys the isolation and auditing model but leaves execution constraints and result shape unspecified, which matters for a security-sensitive executor.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'code' parameter, whose schema description ('Python code to audit and run') already matches the description's mention of Python snippets. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Executes untrusted Python snippets') plus the mechanism ('ephemeral sandbox with static AST safety auditing'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like sql_injection_ast_guard, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as sql_injection_ast_guard or guardrail_verify, and no preconditions (e.g., code size limits, supported imports) are given. Usage is only inferable from the stated purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.