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

codex-mcp-bridge

by buidangminh23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Stop the shared Codex app-server

stop_codex_app_server
DestructiveIdempotent

Stop the shared Codex app-server during work hand-off to prevent app stuttering; the bridge will automatically start a new one when next needed.

Instructions

Stop the shared app-server this bridge talks to. Use it when work is handed off and the Codex desktop app is open: two app-servers on the same ~/.codex state make the app stutter. The bridge starts a new one automatically the next time it needs it.

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": "stop_codex_app_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal idempotent and destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the shared-server scope, the stuttering problem it prevents, and automatic restart by the bridge on next use. It does not detail effects on in-flight Codex threads, but 'when work is handed off' and the auto-start note cover the main behavioral concerns.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it stops, when to use it and why, and what happens next. The key trigger is front-loaded after the opening statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, rationale, and post-call behavior. The sibling context and annotations complete the picture without requiring extra prose.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly implies this is a direct action with no inputs.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Stop the shared app-server this bridge talks to.' It distinguishes this tool from the thread/turn siblings by naming the bridge's app-server as the target, making its unique role clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when work is handed off and the Codex desktop app is open,' plus the reason ('two app-servers on the same ~/.codex state make the app stutter'). It also reassures about the next startup, so an agent knows when it is safe and expected to call it.

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