Skip to main content
Glama

List Codex threads

list_codex_threads
Read-only

Lists recent Codex threads with IDs, titles, cwd, last update, and status so you can select the exact threadId to send a prompt to.

Instructions

List recent Codex threads (id, title, cwd, last update, status) so you can pick the exact threadId to talk to.

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": "list_codex_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoOnly threads whose session cwd matches this path exactly
limitNoHow many threads to return (default 15)
loadedOnlyNoOnly threads currently loaded/live inside this app-server (default false)
searchTermNoSubstring filter on the thread title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.23.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.11.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful context by naming returned fields (id, title, cwd, last update, status), but it does not discuss ordering, pagination defaults, or whether archived threads are included.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately explains its purpose. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It names the returned fields and the selection purpose, though it could mention ordering or default recency behavior.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List recent Codex threads') and clarifies the output fields, so the agent can distinguish it from thread-reading or messaging tools. It implies the downstream action ('pick the exact threadId to talk to') but does not name the sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It gives implied usage: call this to find a threadId before talking to a thread. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools such as open_codex_thread or read_codex_thread.

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