Skip to main content
Glama
buidangminh23

codex-mcp-bridge

by buidangminh23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Check the Codex bridge environment

codex_bridge_status
Read-only

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.

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.

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.11.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds that this is a local environment introspection covering binary resolution, endpoint liveness, and OS integrations, but it discloses no further behavior beyond what is inspected and does not repeat or conflict with the annotations.

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 lists the inspected facets without filler. It is slightly dense as a single clause chain, but every enumerated item earns its place by telling the agent what the report contains.

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?

No output schema exists, so the enumeration of reported fields (platform, binary, endpoint, liveness, deep-link, macOS integrations) usefully stands in for a return-value description. The remaining gap is that it never states prerequisites or the recommended moment to run the check.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents 'cwd', including the important non-granting caveat. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Report' plus the resource 'how this bridge is wired on the current machine' is specific, and the description enumerates the exact facets inspected (platform, resolved codex binary, app-server endpoint and liveness, deep-link support, macOS integrations). This unambiguously separates it from every sibling, which all operate on threads, turns, or project preparation.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of the thread/agent siblings or when not to call it. Usage is only implied: the liveness and endpoint fields suggest a pre-flight/troubleshooting check before delegating, which an agent can infer but is never told.

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