codex-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.19.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute starts a session, continue resumes, review inspects changes, sessions lists existing, metrics reports usage, batch fans out tasks, and health checks installation. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'codex_' prefix with a descriptive verb or noun in lowercase snake_case. Examples: codex_execute, codex_continue, codex_sessions. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. The count covers the core workflows of session management, review, metrics, and batch processing without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle (start, continue, review, list sessions) plus auxiliary functions (metrics, batch, health). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to delete or cancel sessions, but this doesn't severely hinder the agent.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 115 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 7, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the returned sessionId for later feedback but does not detail potential destructive actions, authentication requirements, or the implications of the different sandbox levels. The description is partially helpful but leaves important behavioral traits unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences—first stating purpose, second listing outputs. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and return value).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for primary usage. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of optional parameters like model, reasoningEffort, or writeNotes beyond what the schema offers.
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?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It repeats some defaults but does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameters.
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 clearly states the tool starts a new Codex session to execute a plan/task in the given workspace, and lists the key return values (sessionId, agent message, file changes, commands). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like codex_continue or codex_metrics.
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 description explains the tool's function but does not explicitly guide when to use it vs. alternatives like codex_continue (for resuming) or codex_review. Usage context is implied by sibling names but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description clearly indicates this is a read-only operation (reads a log file) and mentions an optional environment variable for pricing. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the tool name alone.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence immediately states purpose and source; second adds optional behavior. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
Covers core functionality (aggregation from log file) and optional pricing. However, with no output schema, the description could hint at the format of returned data (e.g., 'returns a JSON object with aggregated counts'). Still mostly complete for its simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% with good schema descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds value by mentioning the pricing env var but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it rolls up token/duration/failure counts from a specific local metrics log. This is more specific than a generic 'aggregate metrics' and gives the exact file path, distinguishing it from sibling tools that execute or review code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like codex_sessions. Does not specify when not to use it or any prerequisites beyond optional environment variable. Missing context that would help an agent decide between sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'preserves context' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., sandbox permissions, file writes, terminal output). The schema covers some details, but the description itself lacks deeper behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits.
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?
Extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and method; the second adds the key benefit of context preservation. No fluff, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 9 parameters and an output schema, the description omits important context like the dependency on codex_execute to obtain sessionId, or the streaming behavior indicated by the terminal parameter. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complex tool.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'sessionId' and 'prompt'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could briefly highlight key optional params.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Resume' and the resource 'Codex session' with the method 'by sessionId with a follow-up prompt'. It distinguishes from siblings like codex_execute (which starts new sessions) and codex_sessions (which lists them) by emphasizing resuming an existing session and preserving context.
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?
Explicitly says 'Resume an existing session' and gives a typical use case 'review feedback'. This implies when to use (when you have a sessionId) and implicitly when not (for new sessions, use codex_execute). No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses concurrency limits, per-cwd locks, the need for distinct cwds, and ordered results. It does not mention error handling beyond the schema's failFast parameter, but provides key behavioral context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers return format (ordered results). The three parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's core behavior, though it omits discussion of failFast and maxConcurrency.
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 baseline is 3. The description restates the distinct cwds constraint but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool fans out N tasks across N cwds, which is a specific verb+resource. The title reinforces 'Run multiple Codex tasks in parallel across workspaces,' distinguishing it from single-task siblings like codex_execute.
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?
The description implies usage for parallel tasks across distinct cwds, and warns that callers must supply distinct cwds. However, it does not explicitly contrast with single-task alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and output structure (findings ordered by severity + sessionId). It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only review tool this is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and safety, followed by output details. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers purpose, safety, and output. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., git repository) but is complete enough for a review tool.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It reinforces 'uncommitted changes' but does not elaborate on parameters like baselineRef or focus.
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 clearly states the verb 'review' and the resource 'uncommitted changes in a workspace', and adds the qualifying note 'read-only sandbox, no files modified'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_execute and codex_metrics.
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?
The description implies usage when reviewing uncommitted changes and mentions a sessionId usable with codex_continue. However, it lacks explicit when/ when-not guidance or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a read-only reporting behavior without side effects, but could add explicit mention of non-destructive nature and any required permissions.
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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and a simple output (version and status), the description is complete. An output schema exists but the description need not explain return values per the rubric.
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?
There are 0 parameters (schema coverage 100%), so a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.
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 clearly states the tool reports the installed version and login status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like codex_execute, which perform actions.
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 description implies usage for checking installation status but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or contexts where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does well to clarify the tool's behavior: it is a read-only operation that returns session metadata. It specifies the return structure and sorting. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a list tool this is acceptable.
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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the key information ('Discover Codex sessions') and provides essential details efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, its parameters, return values, and relation to sibling tools (codex_continue). For a simple list tool with two parameters, this is complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the cwd filter's purpose ('to find sessions from a specific workspace') and implicitly references the limit parameter via the schema. This additional context raises the score above baseline.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing prior Codex sessions. It specifies the storage location, return fields (sessionId, cwd, last activity), and ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the connection to codex_continue for resuming sessions.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool (to discover sessions) and provides a contextual use case: filtering by cwd to find sessions from a specific workspace. It also hints at the alternative of using codex_continue with the sessionId. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like codex_health or codex_review, so it loses a point for completeness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![codex-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![codex-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server