A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceEnables Codex to delegate deep research, PRD drafting, design thinking, and current-information lookups to ChatGPT Web/App via a local MCP connector, saving Markdown results to the filesystem.
MIT
web-gpt
Related Servers
Alternatives to web-gpt
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceLocal macOS MCP bridge that gives ChatGPT shell, unrestricted filesystem access, real PTY sessions, background jobs, and read-only stored Codex history. ChatGPT stays the reasoning layer; the bridge makes no model calls.55MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables other agents to list, read, start, and steer Codex chats in the macOS ChatGPT desktop app, including sending follow-ups, choosing model/reasoning/speed, interrupting work, and answering approvals. It can run locally or behind bearer-token-protected tunnels for remote monitoring and control.50 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables ChatGPT to read local project facts and manage Codex Desktop tasks through the official Secure MCP Tunnel.11 npm16MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables local code execution via Codex (Luna) through MCP, using ChatGPT Web conversations as a planner. Provides file, terminal, and code execution tools while keeping long-running jobs manageable.16MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLocal MCP bridge enabling ChatGPT web to access approved local files and execute tasks via local Codex.16MIT
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
ask_chatgpt sends tasks and awaits responses, while read_chatgpt only restores and reads previous chats without sending. Their purposes are distinct and unlikely to be confused.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_chatgpt snake_case pattern: ask_chatgpt and read_chatgpt. The naming convention is predictable and clear.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the surface feels thin even though both tools are clearly useful. The server covers a narrow scope, but the count is at the low end of the acceptable range.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow of sending a task and reading a previous chat is well covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete or list-chats operation, but agents can work around them using session_id handling.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessSyncing