Skip to main content
Glama
cexll
by cexll

version

Retrieve version details and system information from the Codex MCP Server to verify compatibility and check current deployment status.

Instructions

Display version and system information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The execute function for the 'version' tool, which retrieves Codex CLI version via command, Node.js version, platform, and formats system information, with fallback if codex not available.
      execute: async (args, onProgress) => {
        try {
          const codexVersion = await executeCommand('codex', ['--version'], onProgress);
          const nodeVersion = process.version;
          const platform = process.platform;
    
          return `**System Information:**
    - Codex CLI: ${codexVersion.trim()}
    - Node.js: ${nodeVersion}
    - Platform: ${platform}
    - MCP Server: @cexll/codex-mcp-server v1.2.5`;
        } catch (error) {
          return `**System Information:**
    - Codex CLI: Not installed or not accessible
    - Node.js: ${process.version}
    - Platform: ${process.platform}
    - MCP Server: @cexll/codex-mcp-server v1.2.4
    
    *Note: Install Codex CLI with: npm install -g @openai/codex*`;
        }
      },
  • Zod schema defining empty arguments for the 'version' tool.
    const versionArgsSchema = z.object({});
  • Registers the 'versionTool' into the central toolRegistry alongside other tools.
    toolRegistry.push(
      askCodexTool,
      batchCodexTool,
      // reviewCodexTool,
      pingTool,
      helpTool,
      versionTool,
      brainstormTool,
      fetchChunkTool,
      timeoutTestTool
    );
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a display operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't add context like output format, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth for richer behavioral traits.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any waste. Every word earns its place by directly conveying what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough to convey basic functionality. However, it lacks details on output format or system information specifics, which could be helpful for an agent. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in richer context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool without unnecessary details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('version and system information'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'ping' or 'Help' by focusing on system metadata rather than connectivity or assistance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'timeout-test' might also relate to system behavior).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ping' for basic connectivity checks or 'Help' for documentation. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cexll/codex-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server