Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codex OpenRouter MCP

Codex OpenRouter MCP

by bladehstream
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Codex OpenRouter MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • OpenCode MCP Orchestrator

      Mesya82
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable coding assistants to delegate repository investigation, bounded implementation work, and noisy command runs (tests, builds, linters) to sandboxed OpenCode agents. Each role can use an independently selected model, and only concise results are returned to the parent agent, which keeps responsibility for architecture and high-risk operations.
      MIT

    • nuncius

      sdirkse
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor to delegate self-contained coding tasks to one another on the user's own subscriptions, with each task isolated in a git worktree and sandbox, usage tracked, budgets enforced, and results returned for review.
      438 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0

    • Model Worker MCP

      a5768549
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables bounded, local coding tasks to be delegated to OpenAI-compatible models with explicit working directory and read/write paths, pre-application unified-diff validation, and optional verification commands. It routes tasks by complexity and risk, while blocking sensitive changes such as auth, payment, secrets, migrations, database, deployment, or production environments.
      5
      MIT

    • Jev Context MCP

      Smith2912
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local, bounded routing and evidence judgments for Codex tasks, with tools for reading file context, checking outputs, and selecting registered workflows while keeping execution and review with the client.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 14 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Tools are mostly separable by domain (profiles, tasks, file reviews, artifacts), but there is ambiguity between synchronous and asynchronous variants (delegate_task vs start_task, review_files vs start_file_review) and send_followup applies to both tasks and file reviews, which could confuse an agent about which context it is for.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Naming is mostly verb_noun but inconsistent in verb choice: delegate vs start, review_files vs start_file_review, and get_task_result vs get_task_status are similar but not parallel. The start_ prefix is applied unevenly, and send_followup is a generic verb that doesn't match the pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    14 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool appears to serve a distinct role in task delegation, file review, and artifact management. No tool seems redundant or unnecessary.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers task lifecycle (start, status, result, cancel, follow-up) and artifact lifecycle (prepare, preview, commit, discard, list), but file reviews lack a dedicated cancel mechanism and there is no explicit result retrieval for async file reviews, relying on generic get_task_result or send_followup, which creates potential dead ends.

    Resources