Docker MCP Sandbox

git_commit

Stages specified files and creates a Git commit inside a sandbox. Use it to record changes in an isolated container without touching the host environment.

Instructions

Stages specified files and creates a Git commit in the sandbox.

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>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "git_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Commit message
`addFiles`	No	Files to add (default: ["."])
`sandboxId`	Yes	Target sandbox identifier
`authorName`	No	Override author name
`authorEmail`	No	Override author email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool stages files and creates a commit, but it does not describe permissions, author configuration requirements, what happens to existing staged changes, failure conditions such as empty commits, or what the operation returns.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action efficiently and does not bury the main operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only one sentence. While parameter semantics are covered by the schema, behavioral prerequisites, side effects, and return expectations are not described, leaving important context missing for a mutation tool.

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%, and the schema already documents the commit message, addFiles default of ["."], sandboxId, and author overrides. The description only implies that specified files relate to addFiles and that a commit message is involved, adding little beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: staging specified files and creating a Git commit in a sandbox. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling Git tools such as git_status or git_diff.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as whether git_init must run first, and no exclusion conditions. The operation is implied by the description, but usage guidance is largely absent.

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

Deploy Server