Claude MCP for Codex
Related Servers
Alternatives to Claude MCP for Codex
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables Claude Code to delegate bounded, read-only analysis and isolated patch proposals to the locally installed Codex CLI over MCP, with sanitized live status, revision-aware polling, and reviewable results.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables OpenAI Codex to consult Claude Code for co-analysis, adversarial second opinions, and read-only file review over the Model Context Protocol, with Claude remaining advisory and unable to modify files.912 npmMIT
- FlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceEnables Codex to delegate already-scoped coding tasks to Claude Code and manage the resulting execution and fresh read-only review sessions, returning deterministic PASS/FAIL results through a local MCP interface.716-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables users to request a second opinion from a locally authenticated Claude Code model via MCP tools, supporting asynchronous jobs with restricted tools for safety.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables Codex to manage a local Claude Code companion through MCP, implementing a dual-agent workflow where Codex handles reasoning and review while Claude Code performs engineering tasks.181MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server enabling Claude to consult Codex (GPT-5.x) mid-task for second opinions, plan/diff review, brainstorming, and codebase exploration via structured debates and permission-controlled interactions.2MIT
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool in the set, there is no possibility of overlap or misselection. ask_claude has a single, unambiguous purpose: obtaining a second opinion from Claude.
The lone tool name ask_claude follows a clean snake_case verb_noun convention that is self-descriptive. No competing conventions exist to create inconsistency.
A single tool is borderline thin by the rubric's standards, though the server's stated purpose (one-shot consultation with Claude) is narrow enough that one operation is defensible. There is no room to over- or under-scope further.
For the declared purpose of a stateless second-opinion bridge, the surface is effectively complete: the one operation exists and its limits are documented. Minor gaps exist around multi-turn follow-up or session continuity, but those appear intentionally excluded and agents can work around them.