Skip to main content
Glama
WebisityStudio

claude-codex-mcp-bridge

by WebisityStudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Wait for the next bridge message

bridge_wait

Keeps an agent turn alive until a matching mailbox message arrives, enabling agents without background pings to receive and reply during active coordination threads.

Instructions

Keep this agent turn alive until a matching bridge message arrives, for agents without background pings. It cannot wake a chat whose turn has already ended, so call it before going idle. After handling and replying, call bridge_wait again while the coordination thread is active.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYesAgent whose inbox should wake this turn.
limitNoMaximum messages to return. Defaults to 25 (30 for threads).
maxCharsNoCharacter budget for the whole result. Defaults to 48000 so MCP hosts never truncate it.
threadIdNoOptional coordination thread filter.
fromAgentNoOptional sender filter.
acknowledgeNoMark returned messages handled before returning. Defaults true; history is preserved.
timeoutSecondsNoHow long to keep the MCP call open. Defaults to 285 seconds so common five-minute host limits do not cut it off.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Maximum messages to return. Defaults to 25 (30 for threads).",
+  "maximum": 200,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxChars
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Character budget for the whole result. Defaults to 48000 so MCP hosts never truncate it.",
+  "maximum": 400000,
+  "minimum": 1000,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: the call blocks/keeps the turn alive, and it cannot revive an already-ended turn. However it is silent on key behaviors such as what happens at timeout, whether returned messages are consumed, and what acknowledge defaults do, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the ordering constraint and the re-call instruction, each earning its place.

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 blocking wait tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling contract (when to call, when it fails, the loop pattern). It stops short of describing the returned message shape or timeout behavior, which for a no-output-schema tool leaves a small gap.

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 seven parameters including defaults, bounds, and the acknowledge semantics. The description adds only the vague notion of a 'matching' message, adding little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: keep the agent turn alive until a matching bridge message arrives. The phrase 'for agents without background pings' distinguishes it from a passive-ping mechanism, but it never names sibling tools such as bridge_wake_status or bridge_inbox, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Gives explicit lifecycle guidance — call it before going idle, and re-call it after handling and replying while the coordination thread is active. It also states a when-not condition: it cannot wake a chat whose turn has already ended. What it lacks is a named alternative for agents that DO have background pings or a comparison to bridge_wake_status.

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