List or create allowed directories for Codex or Claude Code projects, enabling local CLI context without Desktop registration.
List aliases or create an allowed directory. Codex can register with Desktop; Claude Code uses the folder as local CLI project context, without Desktop registration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| parent | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| provider | No | codex |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Input schema / properties / providerAdded value: +{
+ "default": "codex",
+ "enum": [
+ "codex",
+ "claude-code"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds one useful behavioral detail about Codex Desktop registration versus Claude Code local folder context. However, it omits the 'register' and 'inspect' actions, doesn't disclose side effects or prerequisites, and the annotations only say the operation isn't read-only without adding depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler, and the primary actions are front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to missing information rather than being a model of efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and only weak annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers only a subset of the action enum and gives no information about return values, path semantics, or when 'create' vs 'register' is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains provider behavior somewhat ('Codex can register with Desktop; Claude Code uses the folder as local CLI project context'), which maps loosely to the 'provider' and 'project' parameters, but 'name', 'action', and 'parent' are left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions specific actions ('List aliases', 'create an allowed directory') but the resource and intended scope are vague ('aliases', 'allowed directory'). It doesn't distinguish the tool from sibling bridge tools or account for the 'register'/'inspect' actions present in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use bridge_projects instead of related tools. The only contextual note differentiates Codex and Claude Code behavior, but it doesn't state when this tool should or shouldn't be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.