Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codex MCP Server

Codex MCP Server

by SpongeBaby-124
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

review_project

Analyze project code structure to review and fix modifications across multiple files, providing comprehensive context for system-level refactoring.

Instructions

【核心工具】审查整个项目的代码。适用于跨文件夹修改、系统级重构或需要全面上下文的情况。Codex 将分析项目结构和代码，根据提供的变更描述进行审查和修复。

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>",
      "change_description": "<change_description>"
    },
    "name": "review_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes当前项目的根目录路径（绝对路径）
change_descriptionYesAgent 具体修改了代码的什么内容（详细说明修改了哪些文件、逻辑以及目的）
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。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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. It mentions 'Codex 将分析项目结构和代码，根据提供的变更描述进行审查和修复' (Codex will analyze project structure and code, review and fix based on the provided change description), which implies mutation behavior but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what '修复' (fix) entails. For a tool with potential code modifications, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded with core functionality. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third explains the behavioral process. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (code review/fix tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits like safety, output format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what '修复' (fix) means and the result format would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 since the schema provides comprehensive parameter details, and the description doesn't compensate or add value here.

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: '审查整个项目的代码' (review the entire project's code) with specific verbs like '分析项目结构和代码' (analyze project structure and code) and '进行审查和修复' (perform review and fix). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning '跨文件夹修改、系统级重构或需要全面上下文的情况' (cross-folder modifications, system-level refactoring, or situations requiring comprehensive context), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: '适用于跨文件夹修改、系统级重构或需要全面上下文的情况' (suitable for cross-folder modifications, system-level refactoring, or situations requiring comprehensive context). It implies usage scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'review_file' for single-file reviews.

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