Skip to main content
Glama
alvarosw

codex-mcp

by alvarosw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

codex_review

Run a non-interactive Codex code review on the current repository to identify issues in uncommitted changes, a commit, or changes against a base branch.

Instructions

Run a non-interactive Codex code review (codex exec review) against the current repository.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory for the codex process.
envNoAdditional environment variables for codex.
baseNoReview changes against the given base branch.
modelNoModel the agent should use. May be forced by the server's model-override environment variable.
titleNoOptional commit title to display in the review summary.
commitNoReview the changes introduced by a single commit.
promptNoCustom review instructions.
ephemeralNoSkip persisting session files to disk. Defaults to true.
extraArgsNoAdditional raw codex CLI arguments appended to the command.
timeoutMsNoProcess timeout in milliseconds.
ignoreRulesNoDo not load user or project execpolicy .rules files.
uncommittedNoReview staged, unstaged, and untracked changes.
outputSchemaNoPath to a JSON Schema file describing the expected final response shape.
skipGitRepoCheckNoAllow running outside a Git repository. Defaults to true.
outputLastMessageNoPath to a file where the final agent message should be written.
dangerouslyBypassApprovalsAndSandboxNoSkip all confirmation prompts and sandboxing. Only use in an already-isolated environment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is non-interactive and scoped to the current repository, but it omits output behavior, side effects, and runtime characteristics such as session persistence or long-running process behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite a fully documented schema, this is a complex 16-parameter external-process tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain what the review returns, how to interpret results, or what side effects to expect, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact underlying command (`codex exec review`), the target (current repository), and the execution mode (non-interactive). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like codex_run and codex_raw.

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?

The use case is implied by the phrase 'code review', and the non-interactive qualifier suggests automated scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer the choice from the tool name and sibling list.

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