Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Sandbox MCP

Windows Sandbox MCP

by xxmisaoxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sandbox_keys

Destructive

Send keyboard shortcuts such as CTRL+A, CTRL+S, ALT+F4, ENTER, or TAB to a Windows Sandbox guest, then verify the result.

Instructions

Send guest shortcut such as CTRL+A, CTRL+S, ALT+F4, ENTER or TAB; verify afterward.

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": {
      "chord": "<chord>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hwndNo
chordYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only 'guest' (it targets the guest OS, not host) and 'verify afterward,' but says nothing about focus requirements, what happens if no window has focus, or which window the keys hit.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded; examples are packed efficiently. The trailing 'verify afterward' is slightly disjointed but does not bloat the text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Placeholder.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates for 'chord' via examples, but gives no syntax rules for combining keys, and 'hwnd' is completely unexplained in both description and schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Send guest shortcut') and supplies concrete chord examples (CTRL+A, ALT+F4, ENTER, TAB), so an agent knows it injects keyboard input into the guest. It does not explicitly contrast with sandbox_text or sandbox_click, which are the nearest siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria. The only guidance is the trailing 'verify afterward,' which hints at a workflow step but never states when to prefer this over typing text (sandbox_text) or clicking (sandbox_click).

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