codex-mcp-bridge
Related Servers
Alternatives to codex-mcp-bridge
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that lets Claude Code drive the local Codex CLI as a sub-agent for concurrent queries and optional file/shell actions, using the CLI's existing login and sessions.454 npm1MIT
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that routes Claude Desktop chat into Claude Code, enabling headless execution and terminal handoff with session continuity.4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that bridges Claude Desktop with Claude Code, allowing users to delegate tasks to Claude Code directly from Claude Desktop conversations, supporting both synchronous and background execution with session reuse.1 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for managing Claude Code conversation sessions1250 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLocal MCP server for Codex to send prompts to ChatGPT Web Pro extension and manage repository tasks safely.1-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLocal MCP bridge that lets Codex operate local Claude Code sessions, including listing, starting, resuming, forking, prompting, and stopping conversations via the Remote Control CLI.14MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA stdio MCP server that lets Codex Desktop/CLI delegate implementation tasks to Claude Code CLI with workspace validation, Git status checks, and session resume capabilities.24MIT
TDQS
Scored across 12 tools
Several tools overlap in starting and continuing Codex conversations (start_codex_thread, delegate_to_codex, send_to_codex_thread, wait_codex_reply), making it easy to misselect despite detailed descriptions. Read/list/open and inspect/prepare have clearer boundaries, but the conversation lifecycle tools are subtle.
Mostly consistent snake_case with verb_noun or verb_to_noun patterns. One outlier is codex_bridge_status (noun-first), and delegate_to_codex uses an unusual 'to_codex' suffix, but the set remains readable and predictable overall.
12 tools is reasonable for a bridge covering thread management, messaging, project authorization, and app-server lifecycle. No excessive bloat, though a few conversation tools could potentially be consolidated.
Covers listing, reading, opening, sending, interrupting, starting/stopping app-server, status, and project onboarding. Minor gaps like thread archiving or deletion exist, but core bridge workflows are well represented.