Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docker MCP Sandbox

Docker MCP Sandbox

by thedailyhub31-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

git_status

Inspect the working tree status in a sandbox repository to see changed, staged, and untracked files before committing.

Instructions

Shows the working tree status 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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sandboxIdYesTarget sandbox identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Shows' signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is the key safety signal, but there is no mention of behavior on a non-git or uninitialized repository, nor of what the status output covers (staged, unstaged, untracked).

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of describing what the returned status contains, a gap an agent must resolve by invoking it or falling back on git conventions.

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 single parameter `sandboxId` is documented as 'Target sandbox identifier', so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about sandboxId beyond confirming the repository lives in a sandbox.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Shows') and resource ('working tree status') scoped to 'the sandbox repository', so an agent can distinguish it from git_diff, git_log, and git_commit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, which keeps it short of 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?

Usage is only implied through the well-known semantics of `git status`; the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like git_diff. An agent familiar with git will infer intent, but nothing in the text routes it.

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