Skip to main content
Glama
aresyn

Codex Control Plane MCP

codex_execute_plan

Submits an approved plan for implementation with configurable timeout, approval policy, and sandbox settings.

Instructions

Compatibility layer low-level workflow write tool: submit the latest approved Plan Mode plan for implementation by sending 'Implement the plan.' in default collaboration mode. For durable long-running tasks and client-timeout resilience, prefer codex_submit_task(operation_type='execute_plan').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflow_idNo
chat_idNo
project_idNo
client_request_idNo
messageNoImplement the plan.
output_schemaNoOptional JSON Schema passed to app-server outputSchema for the execution turn final assistant message.
forceNo
timeout_secondsNo
first_message_timeout_secondsNoDeprecated and ignored. Plan execution returns after turn/start; poll codex_get_workflow_status or codex_get_turn_status.
first_message_max_charsNo
approval_policyNoon-request
sandboxNoread-only

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorNo
agentGuidanceNo
agentGuidanceTextNo
recoveryAttemptStateNo
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries burden. It reveals core behavior (submitting plan via message) and hints at compatibility layer nature, but does not elaborate on mutations, auth, or side effects beyond what parameters imply.

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, concise and front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

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 12 parameters and output schema, description is minimal. Assumes knowledge of 'Plan Mode' and does not explain return behavior or how results are polled. Lacks detail for a complete picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (17%). Description adds context about the main action but does not explain most parameters (workflow_id, chat_id, force, timeout, etc.) beyond their names, leaving gaps.

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 it is a low-level tool to submit the latest approved plan for implementation by sending 'Implement the plan.' It distinguishes from sibling codex_submit_task, providing specific verb and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use alternative codex_submit_task for durable tasks, implying this tool is for simpler, immediate execution. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/aresyn/codex-control-plane-mcp'

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