Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docker MCP Sandbox

Docker MCP Sandbox

by thedailyhub31-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

git_log

Retrieve recent commit history from a sandbox repository to inspect changes made by agents. Set maxCount to control how many commits are returned.

Instructions

Returns recent commit history in the sandbox repository.

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_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxCountNoMaximum commits to return
sandboxIdYesTarget sandbox identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful hint, but it says nothing about ordering (newest-first?), behavior for a missing sandboxId, or whether the operation is paginated or capped beyond the schema's default of 10.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in the other dimensions rather than being padded.

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 simple two-parameter read tool whose schema is fully documented, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema, however, the agent gets no hint about the shape of a returned commit entry, which matters more here than parameter detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so both sandboxId and maxCount are already documented in the schema. The description's word 'recent' loosely aligns with the maxCount default but adds no format, ordering, or range detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (recent commit history) scoped to the sandbox repository. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like git_diff or git_status, which an agent might also reach for when inspecting repository state.

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 guidance on when to use this versus git_diff, git_status, or git_commit, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for browsing history rather than comparing or committing changes.

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