Skip to main content
Glama
WebisityStudio

claude-codex-mcp-bridge

by WebisityStudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Continue Codex with the coordinator's answer

bridge_continue_codex

Resume the exact saved Codex session and worktree after Codex requests a decision, then continue it until completed, blocked, failed, or the round limit is reached.

Instructions

Resume the exact saved Codex session and worktree after Codex asked for a decision (status waiting_for_fable). The sandbox from the first turn is kept. Continue until completed, blocked, failed, or the round limit is reached.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdYesRun ID returned by the orchestration tool.
fableAnswerYesThe coordinator's concrete answer to Codex's question.
waitSecondsNoHow long this call waits for Codex. Defaults to 240 seconds. If Codex is still working, the result arrives in the coordinator's mailbox.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / fableAnswer / description
      Previous value: -"Fable's concrete answer to Codex's question."New value: +"The coordinator's concrete answer to Codex's question."
    • addedInput schema / properties / waitSeconds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How long this call waits for Codex. Defaults to 240 seconds. If Codex is still working, the result arrives in the coordinator's mailbox.",
+  "maximum": 285,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the exact session and worktree are resumed, that the first-turn sandbox is kept, and enumerates terminal states plus a round limit. It does not state permission/auth requirements or what execution side effects occur in the worktree while running.

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?

Three sentences, fully front-loaded: resume action first, precondition second, termination behavior last. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For an async execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers resumption, sandbox persistence, and terminal outcomes; the mailbox delivery behavior is covered in the schema's waitSeconds description. What is missing is how the resumed result is surfaced and whether the run can be re-continued after blocking.

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 runId, fableAnswer, and waitSeconds (including default 240s and the 285s cap behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as format constraints or what a malformed answer does, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (resume the saved Codex session and worktree) and pins it to a unique precondition (status waiting_for_fable) that no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this from ask_codex and bridge_orchestrate_codex without opening the schema.

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 trigger condition is explicit: use this after Codex asked for a decision and is in waiting_for_fable state, and it states the run continues until completed/blocked/failed/round limit. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., versus bridge_wait or bridge_orchestration_wait).

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