de en es ja ko ru zh

codex-async-mcp

Name: codex-async-mcp
Author: benzkittisak

by benzkittisak

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

codex-async-mcp

Servidor MCP local que envuelve la CLI de codex de forma asíncrona: devuelve un job_id inmediatamente en lugar de bloquear, para que Claude nunca alcance el tiempo de espera del protocolo MCP (-32001).

Requisitos

Python 3.11+
CLI de codex instalada y en el $PATH (v0.125.0+)
CLI de Claude Code

Related MCP server: codex-mcp-server

Instalación

cd ~/payroll-mcp   # or wherever this repo lives
pip install -e ".[dev]"

Verificar:

python -c "from codex_async_mcp.server import mcp; print(mcp.name)"
# → codex-async-mcp

Registrar en Claude

Global (todos los proyectos)

claude mcp add codex-async -s user -- python -m codex_async_mcp.server

Solo para el proyecto

cd ~/payrollservice-thailand   # or any project
claude mcp add codex-async -- python -m codex_async_mcp.server

Verificar

claude mcp list
# codex-async: python -m codex_async_mcp.server - ✓ Connected

Añadir permisos de herramientas (settings.local.json)

{
  "permissions": {
    "allow": [
      "mcp__codex-async__codex_start",
      "mcp__codex-async__codex_poll",
      "mcp__codex-async__codex_list",
      "mcp__codex-async__codex_cancel"
    ]
  }
}

Herramientas

Herramienta	Descripción
`codex_start(prompt, cwd, approval_policy?)`	Inicia codex en segundo plano → devuelve `job_id` al instante
`codex_poll(job_id, tail_lines?)`	Comprueba el estado + final de la salida
`codex_list(limit?)`	Lista los trabajos recientes (los más nuevos primero)
`codex_cancel(job_id)`	Mata un trabajo en ejecución

Valores de approval_policy

Valor	Flag de Codex	Comportamiento
`suggest`	`-s read-only`	Sandbox de solo lectura, sin escrituras
`auto-edit`	`--full-auto`	Aplica ediciones automáticamente
`full-auto`	`--dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox`	Sin avisos, sin sandbox

Para la automatización de Claude, utiliza siempre full-auto — el modo suggest espera una entrada interactiva que nunca llegará dentro de un subproceso.

Ejemplo de uso

codex_start(
  prompt="In app/services/prorate_calculation_service.rb line 96, change format(...) to number_to_currency(...)",
  cwd="/Users/bbgummybear/payrollservice-thailand",
  approval_policy="full-auto"
)
# → { job_id: "f3a9b2", status: "running", pid: 12345 }

codex_poll(job_id="f3a9b2")
# → { status: "running", output: "Reading file..." }

codex_poll(job_id="f3a9b2")
# → { status: "done", exit_code: 0, output: "Applied changes to prorate_calculation_service.rb" }

Estado del trabajo

Los trabajos se almacenan en ~/.codex-async/jobs/{job_id}/:

~/.codex-async/jobs/f3a9b2/
  meta.json     ← status, pid, timestamps, exit_code
  output.txt    ← stdout + stderr from codex

Estructura de meta.json:

{
  "job_id": "f3a9b2",
  "status": "running | done | error | cancelled",
  "prompt": "...",
  "cwd": "/path/to/repo",
  "approval_policy": "full-auto",
  "pid": 12345,
  "started_at": "2026-04-29T10:00:00+00:00",
  "finished_at": null,
  "exit_code": null
}

Solución de problemas

`codex-async: ... - ✗ Failed` en `claude mcp list`

No se puede encontrar Python o el paquete no está instalado en el entorno correcto.

# Check which python Claude is using
which python

# If using conda, register with the full path
claude mcp add codex-async -s user -- /Users/bbgummybear/miniconda3/bin/python -m codex_async_mcp.server

# Verify the package is installed in that environment
/Users/bbgummybear/miniconda3/bin/python -c "import codex_async_mcp; print('ok')"

`status: "error"` inmediatamente después de `codex_start`

Codex no pudo iniciarse. Comprueba la salida sin procesar:

cat ~/.codex-async/jobs/<job_id>/output.txt

Causas comunes:

Mensaje de salida	Solución
`command not found: codex`	`codex` no está en el PATH — añádelo al perfil de shell o configura `CODEX_BIN` en `config.py`
`unknown flag: --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox`	Versión de Codex < 0.125.0 — ejecuta `npm install -g @openai/codex` para actualizar
`permission denied`	`cwd` no existe o Claude no tiene acceso

`status: "running"` para siempre, nunca termina

El subproceso está bloqueado (esperando entrada o atrapado en un bucle).

# Check if the process is still alive
ps aux | grep codex

# Check live output
tail -f ~/.codex-async/jobs/<job_id>/output.txt

# Cancel the job
codex_cancel(job_id="<job_id>")

Causa más común: usar approval_policy="suggest" que se pausa para la aprobación interactiva. Usa "full-auto" en su lugar.

El trabajo muestra `status: "running"` después de reiniciar el servidor

El servidor MCP perdió el registro Popen en memoria al reiniciar. La siguiente llamada a codex_poll detectará que el PID está muerto y actualizará el estado automáticamente.

codex_poll(job_id="<job_id>")
# → { status: "done", ... }   ← auto-resolved on first poll

Los trabajos antiguos llenan el disco

# View all jobs sorted by date
ls -lt ~/.codex-async/jobs/

# Delete jobs older than 7 days
find ~/.codex-async/jobs -maxdepth 1 -type d -mtime +7 -exec rm -rf {} +

Estructura del proyecto

codex-async-mcp/
├── README.md
├── pyproject.toml
├── src/
│   └── codex_async_mcp/
│       ├── __init__.py
│       ├── server.py        # MCP entry point, tool definitions
│       ├── job_manager.py   # spawn / poll / cancel / list
│       └── config.py        # JOBS_DIR, CODEX_BIN, defaults
└── tests/
    └── test_job_manager.py

Ejecutar pruebas

pytest tests/ -v

Available Tools

4 tools

codex_cancelA

Cancel a running codex job by sending SIGTERM to the subprocess.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	The job_id returned by codex_start.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 that cancellation is done by sending SIGTERM to the subprocess, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not cover edge cases like job already finished, but the main behavior is well communicated.

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 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, single action), the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens if the job is not running, but the output schema likely handles error responses.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter (job_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('running codex job'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like codex_list, codex_poll, and codex_start.

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 implicitly states when to use (to cancel a running job with a job_id from codex_start) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative scenarios. However, the simplicity of the action mitigates the need for extensive guidelines.

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

codex_listA

List recent codex jobs with their status and prompt summaries.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max number of jobs to return (most recent first). Default: 20.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it lists jobs with status and summaries, but lacks details on pagination, ordering (though limit param says 'most recent first'), rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (status and prompt summaries mentioned), the description is somewhat complete for a simple list operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, empty results, or additional behavioral context that would fully inform an agent.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', and the schema itself provides a description including default and ordering. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 tool lists recent codex jobs, including status and prompt summaries. The verb 'list' and resource 'recent codex jobs' are specific and distinguish from sibling tools (cancel, poll, start) which are different 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Siblings have distinct purposes, so usage is inferred but not clarified.

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

codex_pollA

Poll the status and output of a running (or finished) codex job.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	The job_id returned by codex_start.
`tail_lines`	No	How many trailing lines of output to return. Default: 100.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether the tool is idempotent or safe to call repeatedly. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden, and it only provides minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and scope, though it could mention that the tool can be called multiple times safely.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. The description's mention of 'output' hints at tail_lines, but this is redundant with the schema.

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 'Poll' and the resource 'status and output of a running (or finished) codex job', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_start, codex_cancel, and codex_list.

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 after a job is started, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

codex_startA

Start a codex task asynchronously in the background.

Returns a job_id immediately — does not block or timeout. Use codex_poll(job_id) to check progress.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes	The task description to pass to codex.
`cwd`	Yes	Absolute path to the working directory for codex.
`approval_policy`	No	One of 'suggest', 'auto-edit', 'full-auto'. Default: 'suggest'.	suggest

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses async, non-blocking, immediate return of job_id. Does not mention side effects or auth, but core behavior is adequately covered.

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. Front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Highly efficient.

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?

Has output schema. Describes async nature and returns job_id. Could mention cancellation via sibling codex_cancel, but sufficient for a simple start 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 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; each parameter is defined in schema. No extra context provided.

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 'Start', resource 'codex task', and key behavior 'asynchronously in the background'. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that codex_poll is used to check progress.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use codex_poll for progress checking. Implicitly tells when to use this tool (async tasks) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond polling.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

4 tool updatesv0.1.0Apr 30, 2026
- First observedcodex_cancel
- First observedcodex_list
- First observedcodex_poll
- First observedcodex_start

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored 2026-04-30 02:15 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: start, list, poll, and cancel. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'codex_verb' pattern using snake_case, making it predictable for an agent to infer tool behavior from the name.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the essential operations for managing async jobs (start, list, poll, cancel) without redundancy or missing critical actions.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of an async job: initiating (start), monitoring (poll, list), and termination (cancel). No obvious gaps are present.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Tanjiren MCP Server
app.tanjiren
Hosted MCP server for task-first delegation to remote workstations and workers.
Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents Developer Tools
2
mcp-serverOAuth
com.ffmpeg-micro
MCP server for the FFmpeg Micro video transcoding API — create, monitor, download transcodes.
Multimedia Processing App Automation
21
MANDATE Credential Broker B
io.github.projetnanocorp
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
Security
111
KodyOAuth
io.github.kentcdodds
Personal assistant MCP server with search, execute, packages, jobs, secrets, and integrations.
Developer Tools Code Execution Command Line
2734

Related MCP Servers

codex-mcp-server
Coding Agents Code Execution
shilong20
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for Codex CLI — tmux persistence, git worktree isolation, async dispatch.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-04-07 10:18 UTC)
4
70 PyPI
1
MIT
codex-mcp-server
Coding Agents Code Execution
Pigowenhsiao
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Wraps OpenAI Codex CLI as an MCP server, exposing 8 Codex tools (exec, review, skill list, skill run, status, poll, list jobs, kill) as named tools for use with pi or codex.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-06-04 02:17 UTC)
949 npm
ISC
codex-mcp-bridge
Code Execution Search Developer Tools
hampsterx
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
MCP server that wraps Codex CLI as a subprocess, exposing code execution, web search, and structured output as Model Context Protocol tools.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-29 07:41 UTC)
8
65 npm
3
MIT
engineering-bridge
Coding Agents Command Line Code Execution
wudy29
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
A local STDIO MCP server that bridges MCP clients to the Codex CLI by sending instructions to a configured workspace, exposing task run, status, and result tools with a read-only sandbox and no remote transport.
Updated 18 days ago (2026-09-18 05:45 UTC)
133
MIT

codex-async-mcp

Requisitos

Instalación

Registrar en Claude

Global (todos los proyectos)

Solo para el proyecto

Verificar

Añadir permisos de herramientas (settings.local.json)

Herramientas

Valores de approval_policy

Ejemplo de uso

Estado del trabajo

Solución de problemas

codex-async: ... - ✗ Failed en claude mcp list

status: "error" inmediatamente después de codex_start

status: "running" para siempre, nunca termina

El trabajo muestra status: "running" después de reiniciar el servidor

Los trabajos antiguos llenan el disco

Estructura del proyecto

Ejecutar pruebas

Available Tools

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

`codex-async: ... - ✗ Failed` en `claude mcp list`

`status: "error"` inmediatamente después de `codex_start`

`status: "running"` para siempre, nunca termina

El trabajo muestra `status: "running"` después de reiniciar el servidor