Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docker MCP Sandbox

Docker MCP Sandbox

by thedailyhub31-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_sandboxes

Retrieves all active Docker sandbox instances managed by the MCP server, helping agents identify available isolated environments for file, shell, and Git operations.

Instructions

Lists all active Docker sandbox instances managed by this MCP server.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_sandboxes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral detail: only "active" instances are returned, and it confirms the MCP server is the authority scope. It does not state that the call is read-only (only implied by "Lists"), nor what identifies each entry in the result.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth, and it never indicates what a returned sandbox record contains (identifier, image, status, timestamps) — information an agent needs to chain into destroy_sandbox or execute_command. It is otherwise sufficient for a simple zero-arg lister.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs exist.

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 and resource: "Lists all active Docker sandbox instances managed by this MCP server." The scope word "active" and the "managed by this MCP server" qualifier clearly separate it from create_sandbox/destroy_sandbox mutations, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 the name and description — call it to enumerate existing sandboxes — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives for filtered or detailed inspection. For a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate, not instructive.

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