Skip to main content
Glama
tiny-agent-sandbox

tiny-agent-sandbox

Related Servers

Alternatives to tiny-agent-sandbox

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable agents to execute generated Python, Node.js, or shell code inside disposable, network-isolated Docker containers with strict resource, filesystem, privilege, and time limits, returning structured results and errors.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Spins up isolated opencode instances in Docker containers as MCP servers, providing 80 tools for file and shell operations within a scoped workspace without exposing the host filesystem.
      458 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables secure execution of Python scripts in isolated Docker containers via MCP, with resource limits, package allowlisting, read-only filesystem, and artifact return.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables a model to write short Python programs that call a wrapped MCP server's tools as async functions, rather than invoking them one at a time. The program runs in a locked-down Docker sandbox, and every tool call passes through a host-side bridge that enforces an allowlist, schema-validated arguments, call budgets, timeouts and output caps.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: run_code executes code while sandbox_status reports environment readiness. There is no meaningful overlap between them, so an agent can easily distinguish which to use.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: run_code and sandbox_status. The naming style is uniform snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the surface feels thin for a sandbox server that presumably supports code execution. A richer surface might include file operations, image management, or environment configuration, but for a narrowly-scoped execution sandbox two tools can be reasonable.

    Completeness3/5

    The core execute-and-check lifecycle is covered: run code and check readiness. However, there are notable gaps such as no image listing, no stop/cleanup of sandboxes, and no way to provision or configure runtimes beyond status reporting.