Skip to main content
Glama
eLyiN

Codex Bridge

by eLyiN
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.2.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: single query, batch processing, and stdin-based interaction. No overlap in functionality, and the parameters clearly differentiate use cases.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow the 'consult_codex' prefix with a clear suffix indicating variant (_batch, _with_stdin). Consistent snake_case with no deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the essential modes of operation (single, batch, stdin) for a Codex bridge server. The count is well-scoped and appropriate for the domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers all non-interactive consultation modes: single queries, batch processing for CI/CD, and stdin piping. No obvious gaps given the stated non-interactive scope.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is non-interactive and supports multiple output formats, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens if the directory is invalid. The return description 'Formatted response' is vague.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is concise with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. It uses a structured Args/Returns format that is efficient. Minor redundancy exists (first sentence already says 'structured output', later repeats 'returns formatted response'), but overall no waste.

    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 description adequately covers basic parameters and their purpose, but lacks usage context and potential edge cases. Given a 4-parameter tool with required fields and no annotations, it should explain more about output structure (especially since an output schema exists) and error handling. The timeout hint is good but incomplete.

    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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: 'query' as the prompt, 'directory' as working directory (required), 'format' with options 'text', 'json', 'code' (default 'json'), and 'timeout' with hint about env var and recommended range. This clarifies meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consult Codex in non-interactive mode with structured output.' It specifies the action (consult), resource (Codex), and distinguishes from siblings (batch and stdin modes) by explicitly mentioning 'non-interactive mode'.

    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 for single prompts without stdin, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools 'consult_codex_batch' or 'consult_codex_with_stdin'. There is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

    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?

    No annotations provided; description discloses basic behavior (batch, JSON output) but lacks details on safety, error handling, or performance considerations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose, and no irrelevant content. Only minor verbosity in first two sentences.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Covers purpose, parameters, and output adequately for basic usage; lacks some context on error handling or concurrency but sufficient for a simple batch tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by thoroughly explaining all parameters, including required keys for queries and format limitation.

    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?

    Description clearly states it consults multiple codex queries in batch, for CI/CD automation, distinguishing from single-query siblings.

    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?

    Implied use for CI/CD batch processing but does not explicitly compare to consult_codex or consult_codex_with_stdin, leaving when-not-to-use unclear.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided; description only mentions timeout and pipeline nature, lacking disclosure on permissions, side effects, or error handling.

    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?

    Compact structure with summary, analogy, use case, and parameter list; no wasted words.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Covers parameters and use case well, but lacks detail on return value variations beyond format parameter and error conditions.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 0% schema coverage, description adds clear purpose for each parameter, including examples and recommended timeout range, far exceeding minimum.

    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?

    Describes specific verb 'Consult Codex' with stdin piping, clearly distinguishes from siblings via pipeline-friendly execution and analogy to 'echo | codex exec'.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    States perfect for CI/CD workflows and gives usage analogy, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

    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

codex-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/eLyiN/codex-bridge'

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