codex-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to codex-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to control the local Codex CLI, including running and resuming agent sessions, forking, code review, applying diffs, and generating images, with background execution for long-running tasks.18-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables Grok Build to orchestrate the local Codex CLI for code reviews, adversarial reviews, task rescue, session transfer, and background job management through MCP tools.1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables Codex to delegate coding tasks to an OpenCode CLI locally, returning structured results such as exit codes, session summaries, tool calls, and git diffs.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to spawn and control Codex CLI and Claude Code sessions on the host machine, with session management and filesystem access.4MIT
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceBridges MCP clients with local Codex CLI to execute autonomous coding tasks, manage threads, and inspect history via SQLite state.13991 npm4Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables ISLI agents and MCP clients to dispatch natural-language coding and terminal tasks to a locally-installed Claude Code CLI, supporting both one-shot execution and persistent sessions with workspace and security controls.-
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
Tools are mostly distinct: review, resume, run, and fork each target specific Codex execution modes, while version, login_status, doctor, help, and raw cover ancillary actions. There is slight overlap between run, resume, and fork, but descriptions clarify the differences effectively.
All tools share the consistent codex_ prefix and snake_case naming. The second part is a mix of verbs (review, resume, run, fork) and nouns (version, login_status, doctor, help, raw), but the overall pattern is predictable and readable, with minor deviation from a strict verb_noun convention.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a CLI wrapper server. It covers primary execution modes, status checks, diagnostics, help, and an escape hatch without unnecessary bloat. The count falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The surface covers the main Codex workflows (run, review, resume, fork) and essential auxiliary actions (version, status, doctor, help). The codex_raw tool provides an arbitrary argument escape hatch, mitigating gaps for uncovered CLI options. Minor omissions like explicit auth configuration are not critical due to raw access.