Skip to main content
Glama
aresyn

Codex Control Plane MCP

codex_submit_task

Queue a durable Codex write operation and immediately get an operationId. Poll with codex_get_operation_status for thread updates and completion.

Instructions

Durably queue a Codex write operation and return immediately with operationId. Use codex_get_operation_status to poll threadId, turnId, messages, pending interactions, and completion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operation_typeYes
client_request_idNoStable retry idempotency key. If omitted, MCP creates a new operation and relies on prompt deduplication to prevent active duplicate turns.
project_idNo
chat_idNo
thread_idNoRequired for operation_type='steer_turn'. Target thread that owns the active turn.
source_thread_idNoRequired for operation_type='fork_thread'. Source thread to fork from.
expected_turn_idNoRequired for operation_type='steer_turn'. Active turn id precondition passed to Codex app-server.
workflow_idNo
messageNoRequired for all operation types except fork_thread. For fork_thread, omit it for fork-only or provide it to start the first turn in the forked thread.
input_itemsNoOptional image inputs appended to the text message for operation types that start a new turn. Supports image URL and localImage file path items only.
titleNo
cwdNo
modelNo
fork_configNo
ephemeralNo
output_schemaNoOptional JSON Schema passed to app-server outputSchema for this turn final assistant message.
collaboration_modeNo
approval_policyNoon-request
sandboxNoread-only
forceNo
timeout_secondsNo
first_message_max_charsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorNo
agentGuidanceNo
agentGuidanceTextNo
recoveryAttemptStateNo
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes durability and async return, but omits crucial details like idempotency (only hinted in schema), error handling, side effects across operation types, and authentication requirements. Schema descriptions partially cover some fields, but overall transparency is low.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the verb. However, for a tool with 22 parameters and complex semantics, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the high complexity (22 params, low schema coverage, many siblings, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover operation-type specifics, required fields per type, error scenarios, or return value semantics beyond polling referral.

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 coverage is only 32%, but the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain key parameters like operation_type, client_request_id, or message requirements, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 the tool 'queue[s] a Codex write operation and return[s] immediately with operationId', which is clear about its async nature. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like codex_send_message or codex_start_chat, which also perform write operations.

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 versus alternatives. It mentions polling with codex_get_operation_status but does not specify when to choose codex_submit_task over specific operation-type tools.

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