Codex Control Plane MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

codex_preflight_project_run

Validate project safety before a Codex run by checking configuration and permissions. Use after project discovery to prevent issues during write operations.

Instructions

Check whether a project is safe to use before a Codex run. Use this after project discovery and before write operations. Do not treat skipped worker-managed account checks as hard auth failures.

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_preflight_project_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`project_id`	No
`cwd`	No
`model`	No
`sandbox`	No
`approval_policy`	No
`workflow_kind`	No	plan
`live_probe`	No
`timeout_seconds`	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.

AddedJun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description lacks detail on what checks are performed, whether it's read-only, or side effects. Only mentions skipped worker-managed account checks.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value.

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 having output schema, description fails to cover parameter semantics and behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, including enums. Agent has no guidance on parameter meaning.

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 verb (check) and resource (project safety). It distinguishes from siblings by being a preflight check, not execution or management.

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 states when to use: 'after project discovery and before write operations.' Also provides guidance on handling skipped checks.

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

Deploy Server