Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-mcp-bridge

codex-mcp-bridge

by buidangminh23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Check the Codex bridge environment

codex_bridge_status
Read-only

Reports bridge wiring on the current machine: platform, resolved Codex binary, live app-server endpoint, desktop deep-link support, and macOS integrations; optionally checks target project directory.

Instructions

Report how this bridge is wired on the current machine: platform, resolved codex binary, app-server endpoint and whether it is live, plus desktop deep-link support and macOS integrations.

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_bridge_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoOptional intended target project directory to check before sending; does not grant access

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.23.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.22.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / cwd
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional intended target project directory to check before sending; does not grant access",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.11.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the concrete contents of the report (platform, resolved codex binary, app-server endpoint and liveness, deep-link support, macOS integrations), which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that enumerates the reported fields without filler. The list is dense but each item adds information rather than restating the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately describes what the report contains, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is guidance on when in a workflow to run it and how to interpret a 'not live' result.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions 'cwd' or explains what checking an intended target directory yields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource (how the bridge is wired on this machine), then enumerates the facets checked. It is clearly a diagnostic/status tool, distinguishable in kind from the action-oriented siblings like open_codex_thread or stop_codex_app_server, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied: a status/diagnostic tool that an agent would naturally call as a preflight before delegating. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus inspect_bridge_project or prepare_bridge_project, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools