chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge

by chatre7yos

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: workspace info, file listing, file reading, text search, git status, and git diff. The only minor ambiguity is that workspace_list could be mistaken for a file-listing tool, but the description clarifies it.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names mix verb-first patterns like list_files and read_file with noun-phrase patterns like git_status and git_diff, plus the unusual workspace_list. All names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the convention is not uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a read-only local workspace bridge. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core read-only workspace needs: discover, list, read, search, and inspect git state. Minor gaps like file metadata or git log are not critical for the stated read-only purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by mentioning 'safe' and 'configured workspace path,' but 'safe' is vague and no additional behavior such as hidden-file handling, symlinks, or error conditions is disclosed.
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 short sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is acceptable but not complete. The ambiguity of 'safe,' the missing parameter explanations, and the lack of sibling differentiation leave gaps an agent must guess about.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the path or max_entries parameters at all. It mentions 'workspace path' in general but does not clarify that path selects a subdirectory or that max_entries limits results, leaving the agent without needed parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('safe files and directories under the configured workspace path'), making the tool's basic function obvious. It differentiates from read_file and search_text, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling workspace_list.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_list or search_text. The description implies a listing use case, but it does not state exclusions, when not to use it, or which sibling covers other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly and idempotent), the description adds meaningful behavior: recursive traversal, UTF-8 restriction, and automatic skipping of generated and sensitive paths. This gives the agent useful operational expectations that annotations alone do not convey.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes relevant scoping information: search, text type, recursion, workspace boundary, and excluded paths.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema plus safety annotations, but the lack of parameter guidance and explicit usage conditions leaves gaps. The description covers the main search behavior and scope, yet an agent is left to infer parameter semantics from names and defaults.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. While names and defaults like max_results and case_sensitive are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how path interacts with the workspace root or how query is matched.
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 identifies the action (search), the resource (UTF-8 text), and the scope (recursively under the configured workspace). It is distinct from siblings like list_files and read_file because it targets file contents rather than filenames or file reads, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The description implies use when an agent needs to find matching text inside files under the workspace, but it does not state when to prefer this over list_files or read_file. The usage context is present, but explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive profile. The description adds 'bounded' and 'configured workspace' as extra context, but 'bounded' is left undefined, so the agent does not know what limits apply to the returned diff.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and key qualifiers ('bounded', 'read-only', 'configured workspace') are packed efficiently.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain much. However, the meaning of 'bounded' is unclear, and there is no contrast with git_status, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.
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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and the phrase 'configured workspace' clarifies the implicit scope.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('Git diff for the configured workspace'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like git_status, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs the Git diff rather than file listing or search. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over git_status or when not to use it, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: files are 'bounded' and 'secret-like paths are blocked.' This clarifies size limits and access restrictions, which are not present in 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the scope, the encoding, and a key limitation in minimal words.
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 simplicity of the tool and the rich annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key safety constraints. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and detailed parameter semantics, leaving non-obvious gaps around max_bytes and when to prefer this tool over sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but the missing usage context prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at the max_bytes concept through 'bounded' and at path scope via 'under the configured workspace,' but it never explicitly explains max_bytes semantics, the default value, or what happens when the bound is exceeded. Path is only minimally contextualized as a UTF-8 text file.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('a bounded UTF-8 text file under the configured workspace'), and adds a distinct constraint ('secret-like paths are blocked'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files and search_text, which involve listing and searching rather than reading file contents.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or search_text. The intended context ('read file contents') is only implied by the verb and resource; there are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's 'read-only' adds no new safety information. It does add the 'configured workspace' scope, which is useful context, but it does not disclose what Git status includes (e.g., staged, unstaged, untracked files).
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, focused sentence that conveys the operation, resource, and scope with no redundant words. It is immediately readable and the key information is front-loaded.
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, read-only status tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything needed for an agent to select and invoke it. The configured-workspace qualifier provides sufficient 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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 ('Return'), a clear resource ('Git status'), and a scope qualifier ('configured workspace'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like read_file, list_files, and git_diff without needing to inspect further.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_diff or read_file. The description implies the tool is for inspecting Git state, but it does not state explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the meaningful behavioral fact that there is exactly one configured workspace and no selection is possible, which aligns with the empty input schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 sentence of only seven words, with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes meaningful information.
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?
With zero parameters, a true output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not need to enumerate return values because the output schema supplies that detail.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description's 'one configured' clarifies why no arguments are needed, adding useful context beyond the empty schema rather than repeating it.
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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('the one configured, read-only workspace'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_files and git_status, which operate on files or repository state rather than the workspace object.
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?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving the single configured workspace object, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the name and wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chatre7yos/chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chatre7yos/chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chatre7yos/chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chatre7yos/chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chatre7yos/chatgpt-local-mcp-bridge'

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