Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codex MCP Server

Codex MCP Server

by SpongeBaby-124
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

review_code_changes

Analyze code changes to identify issues, verify modifications, and provide actionable feedback for improvement.

Instructions

【通用工具】将代码或文本发送给 Codex 代理进行审查、修改和验证。Codex 将分析代码，执行必要的编辑或命令，并返回修复摘要。每次 Gemini 修改代码后，应该调用此工具获取 Codex 的审查意见。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "review_code_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes需要审查的代码或文本内容（Gemini 修改后的代码）
session_idNo用于维护上下文连续性的会话 ID。**重要提示**：Agent 应为每个独立的用户任务生成一个唯一的 Session ID，并在该任务的所有相关工具调用中复用它。这允许 Codex 记住之前的变更和对话历史。
contextNo可选的上下文信息，例如文件路径、修改原因等

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that Codex will '分析代码，执行必要的编辑或命令，并返回修复摘要' (analyze code, perform necessary edits or commands, and return a fix summary), which implies mutation and output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what '修复摘要' (fix summary) entails. For a tool with potential edits and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage timing. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be more concise. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy, earning a high score for structure and brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (involves Codex agent analysis and potential edits), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like mutation effects, error cases, or output details. While it mentions the tool's role in a workflow, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, especially for a tool with siblings and no structured safety hints.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (content, session_id, context) with good descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, formats, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: '将代码或文本发送给 Codex 代理进行审查、修改和验证' (send code or text to Codex agent for review, modification, and verification). It specifies the verb (send/review) and resource (code/text), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'review_file' or 'review_project', which likely have overlapping functions. The description is specific about what happens (Codex analyzes, edits, returns summary) but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides implied usage guidance: '每次 Gemini 修改代码后，应该调用此工具获取 Codex 的审查意见' (after Gemini modifies code, this tool should be called to get Codex's review). This suggests it's for post-modification review, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'continue_review' or 'review_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or clear context for choosing among siblings, leaving usage somewhat vague.

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