Docker MCP Sandbox

destroy_sandbox

Stops and permanently removes an ephemeral Docker sandbox container, freeing associated resources when a sandbox is no longer needed.

Instructions

Stops and permanently removes an ephemeral Docker sandbox container and frees associated resources.

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": "destroy_sandbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sandboxId`	Yes	Sandbox ID to terminate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavior beyond the name: removal is permanent and associated resources are freed. However it leaves out idempotency (behavior when the sandbox is already gone), whether attached files/volumes outside the container survive, and any permission requirements for a destructive operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the permanence warning arrives early and the resource-freeing clause is useful rather than redundant.

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 teardown tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential facts: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and that resources are reclaimed. Only minor edge-case behavior (already-terminated sandboxes, failure modes) is unaddressed.

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%, so sandboxId is already documented as 'Sandbox ID to terminate'. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier's format or origin, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb pair ('stops and permanently removes') and a specific resource ('ephemeral Docker sandbox container'), so an agent can immediately tell this is the teardown counterpart to create_sandbox/list_sandboxes. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Use is strongly implied by the destructive teardown framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no note that the sandbox must exist first or be running, and no statement about what an agent should do if it only wants to pause rather than destroy.

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

Deploy Server