Skip to main content
Glama
1WorldCapture

codex-mcp-agent

by 1WorldCapture
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct activity: general execution, repository research, and code review. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'codex_verb' pattern (execute, research, review), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a focused Codex-based agent, covering key functionalities without bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover general execution, research, and code review, but could benefit from additional tools like code generation or explanation to fully round out the domain.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon execution. The agent has no insight into the tool's safety or behavior.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is a single short sentence, but this conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail. It is under-specification rather than efficient communication.

    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?

    Given the tool has 3 required parameters, a complex input, and an output schema but no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context for correct invocation.

    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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on any of the three parameters (prompt, work_dir, ctx), nor does it explain the complex Context object. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the bare schema.

    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?

    Description states 'Execute prompt using codex for general purpose', which is somewhat clear but vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools codex_research and codex_review, leaving the agent guessing about the specific behavior.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where codex_execute is preferred over codex_research or codex_review.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions 'pre-defined review prompts,' giving a slight hint about input constraints, but omits critical details like whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what side effects occur.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions). It fails to earn its place by omitting essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

    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?

    Considering the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address how parameters interact, what valid inputs are, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

    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?

    The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. Yet it adds no meaning to review_type, work_dir, target, prompt, or ctx. The agent gains no insight into what these parameters represent or how to use them correctly.

    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 states 'Execute code review using codex with pre-defined review prompts,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as code review. While it distinguishes from siblings like codex_execute and codex_research by focusing on review, it does not elaborate on what makes this review tool unique.

    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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives codex_execute or codex_research. The description lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool produces a report but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or output format. Adequate but minimal.

    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?

    The description is concise with a clear docstring format listing parameters. It avoids extraneous information, though it could be slightly more structured.

    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?

    Given no annotations, no output schema description, and moderate complexity (4 params, 3 required), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and core parameters. It lacks details on return value or behavior beyond 'produce a report', but is sufficient for basic use.

    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?

    Schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning to all three required parameters (e.g., 'high-level system guidance', 'repository/workspace directory', 'investigation topic'). The optional ctx parameter is not mentioned, but it's internal. Overall, description compensates well for lack of schema descriptions.

    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?

    The description clearly states it produces an analysis report about a topic using repository code, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools codex_execute (execution) and codex_review (review).

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage for research/analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like codex_execute or codex_review, nor any conditions for use.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

codex-as-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-as-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/1WorldCapture/codex-as-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server