Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docker MCP Sandbox

Docker MCP Sandbox

by thedailyhub31-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

git_init

Initializes a Git repository in a sandbox workspace and configures default author name and email for version control.

Instructions

Initializes a Git repository in the sandbox workspace and sets default author configs.

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": "git_init"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userNameNoGit author nameAI Agent
sandboxIdYesTarget sandbox identifier
userEmailNoGit author emailagent@mcp.local
initialBranchNoInitial branch name (default: main)main

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that author configs are set, but does not say what happens if a repository already exists, whether initialization is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the tool 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the main action and the config side effect compactly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition is adequate to identify the action but thin on edge-case behavior and return expectations. The sandbox and branch parameters are fully described by the schema, but existing-repository behavior remains undocumented.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by tying the tool to default author configs, but it does not clarify initialBranch or the required sandboxId beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Initializes a Git repository in the sandbox workspace" and adds the author-config setup. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like git_status or git_log, though it does not explicitly position itself against git_commit or create_sandbox.

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?

Usage is implied by "initializes a Git repository," which suggests setup before commit/status workflows, but the definition gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the sandbox lifecycle tools.

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