Codex Control Plane MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

codex_get_operation_status

Retrieve the current status and progress of a durable operation. Monitor tasks after submission and follow the next recommended actions.

Instructions

Poll a durable operation from storage. Use this after codex_submit_task and follow nextRecommendedAction, pollRecommended, queueState, and agentGuidance. Never create a new retry while an existing operation is active.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "codex_get_operation_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operation_id`	Yes
`last_messages`	No
`message_max_chars`	No
`progress_events`	No
`progress_max_chars`	No
`include_events`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`agentGuidance`	No
`agentGuidanceText`	No
`recoveryAttemptState`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedJun 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / agentGuidance
```
Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / agentGuidanceText
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / recoveryAttemptState
```
Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.2Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool polls durable operations and advises against concurrent retries, but does not disclose behaviors like rate limits, idempotency, or response to missing operations. The description is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core action and quickly move to usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is relatively sparse. It covers usage sequence and a key constraint but omits details about parameter semantics and what to expect in the response. The output schema mitigates some gaps but the description still feels incomplete for a polling tool.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters (schema coverage 0%). Although parameter names like 'operation_id' and 'last_messages' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema defaults and types.

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?

The description states 'Poll a durable operation from storage,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, among sibling tools like codex_get_worker_command_status and codex_get_workflow_status, the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other status-polling tools, though it does specify usage after codex_submit_task.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use this after codex_submit_task' and instructs to 'follow nextRecommendedAction, pollRecommended, queueState, and agentGuidance.' It also warns 'Never create a new retry while an existing operation is active.' However, it does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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

Deploy Server