Skip to main content
Glama
buidangminh23

codex-mcp-bridge

by buidangminh23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Read a Codex thread

read_codex_thread
Read-only

Fetch and inspect messages from a Codex thread without sending prompts. Use the exact turnId to access authoritative assistant item details in Desktop mode.

Instructions

Read a Codex thread without sending anything. In Desktop mode, pass the exact turnId returned by send_to_codex_thread for authoritative assistant item IDs, text, and reply hash; without turnId the native recent-history view may omit items.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many recent messages to show (default 10)
turnIdNoExact turn id to inspect authoritatively in Codex Desktop mode
threadIdYesCodex thread id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / turnId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact turn id to inspect authoritatively in Codex Desktop mode",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.11.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the mode-dependent behavior with turnId and the risk of omitting items without it. This goes beyond the annotation's bare safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about turnId is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with simple parameters and existing annotations, the description covers the purpose, mode-specific behavior, and parameter context. It lacks explicit output format but that's not required without an output schema, and the schema covers parameter defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds extra meaning for turnId, explaining it should be the exact turnId from send_to_codex_thread for authoritative data, which enriches the schema's description.

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?

Clearly states the action 'read' and the resource 'Codex thread', with the qualifier 'without sending anything' that distinguishes it from send_to_codex_thread. The mention of Desktop mode and turnId further differentiates it from siblings like open_codex_thread.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to pass turnId and why, indicating the context of use (read-only). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the sibling list implies them.

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