Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Sandbox MCP

Windows Sandbox MCP

by xxmisaoxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sandbox_browser

Destructive

Inspect and control a browser's DOM inside a Windows Sandbox by snapshotting targets, then clicking or filling elements using fresh references. Requires launching with cdp_port enabled.

Instructions

Opt-in guest CDP: snapshot DOM targets, click or fill a fresh reference. Requires launch with cdp_port.

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": {
      "port": "<port>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_browser"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYes
textNo
actionNosnapshot
referenceNo
target_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so write/destructive behavior is already disclosed. The description adds the opt-in CDP prerequisite, but omits what gets destroyed by click/fill actions, how references become stale, or the effect of a snapshot on DOM state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single terse sentence, which avoids bloat, but the compression sacrifices clarity. Circumlocutions like 'a fresh reference' are front-loaded without definition.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema, 0% param coverage, and a destructive multi-action tool, the description omits parameter behavior, return values, error modes, and action semantics. It is far too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the five parameters (port, text, action, reference, target_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'reference' and 'port' obliquely but never defines the action enum, text payload, or target_id semantics. Full compensation was needed and is absent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the domain (guest CDP, DOM targets) and verb-ish operations (snapshot, click, fill), but the phrasing is compressed and cryptic. It does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like sandbox_click or sandbox_text, which appear to overlap in purpose.

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?

It notes an opt-in prerequisite ('Requires launch with cdp_port') and mentions fresh references, but never states when to use this tool versus sandbox_click or sandbox_text. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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