Skip to main content
Glama
WebisityStudio

claude-codex-mcp-bridge

by WebisityStudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Register agent presence

bridge_register

Register a unique agent name for a conversation and bind wake pings to this or another Claude/Codex session, or disable them; re-registering revives a retired agent.

Instructions

Register a unique agent name for this conversation. wake: "auto" binds this exact app session for background pings; an explicit {app, sessionId} binds another session; null disables pings; omitted keeps the current binding. Registering again reactivates a retired agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wakeNo"auto" detects this conversation's session. Or pass {app, sessionId} (Claude IDs via bridge_sessions; the Codex task ID). null disables pings.
agentYesUnique readable agent name, e.g. 'review-claude'. Not a session ID.
capabilitiesNoSkills this agent offers, e.g. ['review','architecture']. Omitted keeps the existing list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent / description
      Previous value: -"Unique agent name, e.g. 'claude'."New value: +"Unique readable agent name, e.g. 'review-claude'. Not a session ID."
    • changedInput schema / properties / capabilities / description
      Previous value: -"Skills this agent offers, e.g. ['review','architecture']."New value: +"Skills this agent offers, e.g. ['review','architecture']. Omitted keeps the existing list."
    • addedInput schema / properties / wake
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "const": "auto",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "properties": {
+            "app": {
+              "enum": [
+                "codex",
+                "claude"
+              ],
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "sessionId": {
+              "maxLength": 128,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "app",
+            "sessionId"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "\"auto\" detects this conversation's session. Or pass {app, sessionId} (Claude IDs via bridge_sessions; the Codex task ID). null disables pings."
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 it does well: it discloses binding retention on omission, disabling behavior with null, and that registering again reactivates a retired agent. It still omits what happens when the requested name is already held by another conversation and whether an existing live registration is overwritten.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a single dense but well-structured sentence covering the wake branches. Every clause carries information; slightly dense formatting keeps it from a 5.

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 a registration tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers purpose, all three wake states, and re-registration semantics. It lacks only edge-case disclosure (name conflicts, overwrite behavior), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuinely new behavior not present in the schema: omitting 'wake' keeps the current binding. It also frames 'auto' as binding the exact app session for background pings, adding intent beyond the schema's mechanics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Register a unique agent name for this conversation') and clarifies scope as conversation-bound. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that re-registering 'reactivates a retired agent' (vs bridge_retire), but never names an alternative tool for the non-registration path.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance for the wake options ('auto' vs explicit binding vs null vs omitted), which is effectively parameter-level usage guidance. However, it never states when to reach for bridge_register versus siblings like bridge_agents/bridge_sessions, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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