Skip to main content
Glama
WebisityStudio

claude-codex-mcp-bridge

by WebisityStudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Send a message

bridge_send

Saves a message and pings its bound recipient in the background, warning if pickup is unlikely. Broadcasts and silent sends do not ping.

Instructions

Save a message, then ping its bound recipient in the background. The recipient must be registered (use allowUnregistered only when it will register later). The result carries warnings when the recipient is unlikely to pick the message up. Broadcasts and wake:false sends do not ping anyone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient agent name, or '*' to broadcast.
bodyYesMessage content.
fromYesSender agent name.
wakeNoPing a bound direct recipient. Defaults true. False saves silently.
threadIdNoOptional conversation thread identifier.
idempotencyKeyNoOptional key to prevent duplicate delivery on retry.
allowUnregisteredNoDeliver even if the recipient is unknown or retired.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allowUnregistered
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Deliver even if the recipient is unknown or retired.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / wake
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ping a bound direct recipient. Defaults true. False saves silently.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that pinging happens in the background, that unregistered recipients are rejected by default, that result warnings signal low pickup likelihood, and that broadcasts/wake:false suppress the ping. Remaining gaps are failure semantics and full return shape.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, each adding a distinct constraint (registration requirement, warnings, ping suppression). No filler or restatement of the tool 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description needs to do a lot and covers the key behavioral and result-signaling aspects (warnings on low pickup likelihood). It stops short of describing the full return payload or error cases, which is a minor gap for a send tool.

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 goes slightly beyond by framing allowUnregistered as a deferred-registration escape hatch ('only when it will register later') and clarifying wake:false as a silent save. That adds intent the schema text alone does not convey.

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 states a specific compound action – 'Save a message, then ping its bound recipient in the background' – which is a distinctive verb+resource pair. An agent can distinguish this from read-side siblings like bridge_inbox or bridge_wait because the save-and-ping semantics are spelled out up front.

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?

It gives a real precondition ('The recipient must be registered') and a conditional exemption ('use allowUnregistered only when it will register later'), which tells the agent when to reach for that flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. bridge_inbox for reading), so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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