superpower-codex-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: Codex-based analysis (debug, plan, review, verify), CLI-based implementation (antigravity, gemini), static quality check, context summarization, workspace validation, and a workflow orchestrator. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern. However, there are two subpatterns: 'verb_with_codex' (debug, plan, review, verify) and 'run_*' tasks plus standalone verbs (review_code_quality, summarize_repo_context, validate_workspace). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a development assistant. Each tool addresses a specific phase or support function without unnecessary duplication or missing critical steps.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the full development loop: context loading, workspace validation, planning, implementation (two CLIs), static quality review, deep review, debugging, verification, and an orchestrated workflow. A slight gap is the lack of an explicit undo/rollback mechanism, but the workflow tool can manage iterations.
Average 3.6/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'compact responses with persisted diagnostics' and 'Git-verified commits' but does not disclose key traits such as potential destructiveness, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, but dense with technical jargon ('execute/plan contracts', 'acceptance-test traceability'). Could be more accessible without sacrificing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: return values, error handling, and usage workflow are not explained. The tool is complex, but the description is too high-level.
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 low (33% of parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the gap. For example, the meaning of 'allowExecution' and 'planApproved' remain unclear from description alone.
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 clearly states it is a 'coding execution tool' that invokes Antigravity CLI, distinguishing from sibling planning and review tools. The purpose is specific and resource-oriented, though jargon-heavy.
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?
Mentions support for 'execute/plan contracts' and 'Git-verified commits', implying use for execution tasks. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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?
Without annotations, the description lists behavioral traits like strict contracts and Git verification, but omits potential side effects, authentication, or irreversible actions. Provides moderate transparency.
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 a single sentence with a bullet-like list of features, which is efficient and front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured but remains clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and comprehensive usage context, leaving gaps.
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 description coverage is low (33%), and the description does not compensate by adding meaning to individual parameters. It mentions features like acceptance-test traceability but does not connect to the schema's acceptanceCriteria parameter.
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?
Description clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated compatibility alias for run_antigravity_coding_task, stating its purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool beyond being deprecated.
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?
The description implies deprecation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool plans verification or runs allowed commands and asks Codex to assess evidence, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. The core behavior is described moderately.
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 very concise at two sentences, but the first sentence 'Gate completion claims' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer. Overall, it is efficient with no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., assessment results, success/failure). Given the complexity of verification, the lack of return value details and missing behavioral context (e.g., how Codex's assessment is presented) makes the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the semantics of 'expectedBehavior' or 'verificationCommands'. It does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.
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 it 'gates completion claims' by planning verification or running commands and using Codex for assessment. While 'gate' is somewhat unconventional, it clearly indicates a verification role, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_with_codex or review_code_quality.
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 verifying completion claims but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_with_codex or debug_with_codex. No exclusions or context are provided.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool 'returns and saves the plan', indicating persistence. However, it does not detail where the plan is saved, side effects on the workspace, permissions needed, or rate limits. The behavioral information is adequate but somewhat vague.
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?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core action ('Ask Codex to create an implementation plan') and adds a key behavioral detail ('returns and saves the plan'). No extraneous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description could elaborate on what the plan contains (e.g., steps, structure) to help the agent anticipate results. While the tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, the description provides only minimal context on the output format. It is sufficient but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage guidance for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Hence, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool creates an implementation plan and returns/saves it. The verb 'Ask Codex to create' and noun 'implementation plan' provide a specific purpose. However, the phrase 'Superpowers-style' is somewhat jargon-like and may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on review or debugging.
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 mentions 'before Gemini CLI edits code', indicating when to use the tool (pre-editing). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are listed. The usage is implied but clear enough for an agent to infer it should be called before code modifications, not for reviews or verification.
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?
No annotations provided; description only assigns roles (Codex vs Antigravity) but does not disclose safety, destructiveness, or side effects.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a composite tool but lacks details on workflow order, error handling, and iteration behavior; output schema absent but not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions for all 10 parameters; description adds no extra meaning beyond naming actors.
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?
Description clearly states it orchestrates multiple stages (plan, implement, review, fix, verify) and differentiates from sibling tools which are individual steps.
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?
Implied usage for full development cycle but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to individual sibling tools.
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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions reading instruction files and returning startup context, but lacks details on default files read, potential errors, or the nature of the returned context.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the key action and purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value in detail or cover error scenarios, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 the verb 'Read' and resource 'repository instruction files' with specific examples (AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on debugging, planning, or code 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 obtaining startup context before coding, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_with_codex or validate_workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no fixes are applied, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or permissions required.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. While it is very concise, it could benefit from a slight expansion to cover key aspects like the systematic approach or expected output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or achieves. It only says 'analyze a failure', leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome or whether it gets a report, suggestions, or just a confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'analyze a failure' but does not elaborate on parameter usage.
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 the tool's purpose: to analyze a failure using systematic debugging without applying fixes. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('failure'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'review_with_codex' and 'verify_with_codex' which have different focuses.
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 the tool is for debugging failures without fixing them, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to use alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it is a static analysis tool that does not call an LLM, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, return format, or potential side effects.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the tool's function, usage context, and key behaviors. Minor gap: no explanation of return values or output format, but still adequate for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing specific checks (e.g., 'as any', console.log) and default file paths, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax beyond the schema.
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 the tool's purpose as a static analysis pre-filter for Codex, scanning TypeScript files for specific structural issues. It distinguishes from siblings like review_with_codex by noting it runs without an LLM.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Run before Codex review to save token costs'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return behavior: 'Returns findings first, ordered by severity.' This informs the agent about output order. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none for a review) or authentication needs. The description adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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?
The description is only two sentences, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the key behavioral trait (ordered by severity). Perfectly concise for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description could elaborate on the structure of 'findings' (e.g., types, metadata). It provides minimal contextual completeness. The tool has 4 parameters with good schema coverage, but the description does not cover edge cases or usage scenarios. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only states the overall behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask Codex to review the current diff or selected files.' This specific verb-object pairing ('review... diff or selected files') immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'debug_with_codex' or 'plan_with_codex'. The mention of ordering by severity adds specificity.
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?
Description implies when to use the tool (for code review) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. Sibling tool names like 'review_code_quality' and 'validate_workspace' provide some context, but no direct exclusion is given. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states it does not modify files or invoke a model, and returns structured authorization and capability diagnostics. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable for the agent to understand it is a safe, read-only operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes behavioral info. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.
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 3 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and behavior. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the diagnostic structure, but it is sufficient for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It only broadly mentions validation and canonicalization.
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?
Description clearly states it validates and canonicalizes a workspace before loading context or starting Gemini. It specifies the resource (workspace) and action (validate/canonicalize), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on coding tasks, reviews, and debugging.
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?
Description explicitly says 'before loading context or starting Gemini', indicating when to use. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and distinct from sibling tools.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![superpower-codex-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pushplayhero/superpower-codex-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pushplayhero/superpower-codex-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![superpower-codex-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pushplayhero/superpower-codex-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pushplayhero/superpower-codex-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Pushplayhero/superpower-codex-mcp'

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