Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Sandbox MCP

Windows Sandbox MCP

by xxmisaoxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sandbox_screenshot

Read-only

Capture the Windows Sandbox guest desktop as a PNG artifact for visual verification, then retrieve the image with sandbox_artifact.

Instructions

Capture guest virtual desktop as PNG artifact; retrieve image with sandbox_artifact.

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": "sandbox_screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is an artifact rather than inline data, and a specific second tool is needed to fetch it.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the retrieval hint as a trailing clause. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a no-arg capture tool with a clear artifact handoff and annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that the artifact identifier/handle returned is not mentioned, though an agent can discover that via sandbox_artifact.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage there is nothing to document; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead explains the artifact handoff.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb (capture) plus a precise resource (guest virtual desktop) and output form (PNG artifact). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing at sandbox_artifact for retrieval rather than implying inline image return.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the follow-up workflow — capture here, retrieve via sandbox_artifact — which tells the agent how this tool fits with a sibling. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sandbox_windows or sandbox_browser, so conditional guidance is incomplete.

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