Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-mcp

codex-mcp

by alvarosw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

codex_version

Determine the installed Codex CLI version to confirm availability and diagnose compatibility issues before running coding tasks.

Instructions

Return the installed Codex CLI version.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "codex_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory for the codex process.
envNoAdditional environment variables for codex.
timeoutMsNoProcess timeout in milliseconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It states the observable outcome (returning the version) but does not disclose execution details such as spawning a process, potential failures when Codex is not installed, or the output format. For a simple read-only version check this is acceptable but not rich.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it immediately scannable.

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 simple version-check tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only minor context such as error behavior when the CLI is missing, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is omitted.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (cwd, env, timeoutMs). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Return the installed Codex CLI version.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which are about version reporting.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this tool when you need to know the installed Codex CLI version. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions, so it stops at implied guidance.

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