Code Sandbox MCP provides 3 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions. All tools follow verb_noun naming conventions (execute_code, validate_code, reset_session). Descriptions are present and substantive (107 - 159 chars), though they could better address WHEN to use each tool and dependency hints. Input schemas are well-formed with proper types and enums. However, tool responses lack documented output schemas, critical for helping LLMs understand what data flows between tools. Error handling is basic: the server declares errorReporting=true but provides no examples of recovery-guiding error messages. Parameter descriptions are concise but could better specify constraints (e.g., max code size, timeout behavior). The tools follow good composition, each does one thing, but lack per-tool risk annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) that would help agents reason about side effects.

• Document output schema for execute_code. Example: { stdout: string, stderr: string, exit_code: number, execution_time_ms: number, language: string }. This lets LLMs extract results correctly.
• Add tool annotations: execute_code → destructiveHint=true (execution has side effects), validate_code → readOnlyHint=true, reset_session → destructiveHint=true.
• Enhance parameter descriptions: 'code' → 'Source code to execute (max 100KB; execution timeout 30s). For very large code, split into multiple calls.', 'filename' → 'Custom filename with extension (e.g. script.py, main.rb). If omitted, a default name is generated.'
• Add dependency hints: validate_code description should note 'Call this first to check syntax before execute_code to catch errors early.'
• Clarify reset_session: 'Clears all variables, imports, and intermediate results from the current session. Does not affect code files on disk. Safe to call between independent code snippets. Cannot be undone.'
• Consider adding a max_code_length constraint or pagination guidance if code snippets can be very large.