tmux-bridge-mcp

by howardpen9

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action on tmux panes: labeling, resolving, listing, reading, typing, sending keys, messaging, diagnostics. No two tools overlap in purpose, and the read guard enforces a clear workflow without ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'tmux_' prefix with a concise verb: tmux_name, tmux_resolve, tmux_id, tmux_doctor, tmux_list, tmux_read, tmux_type, tmux_message, tmux_keys. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server covers all core interactions with tmux panes (label, identify, list, read, type, key, message) plus diagnostics. This is a well-scoped set—neither too few nor too many.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the essential CRUD-like operations for tmux panes: reading, writing (type/keys), labeling, and listing. Missing would be creating new panes or advanced flush/wait operations, but these are outside the server's stated scope as a bridge.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 30, 2026
- 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether it is read-only, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The tool's behavior is opaque.
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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key behavioral details while remaining brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is underspecified. It does not explain what a 'target ID' is, what the output format looks like, or any error handling. Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for 'label' is 'Label to resolve', and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by its label'. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.
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: 'Look up a pane's target ID by its label'. It uses a specific verb ('look up') and specifies the resource ('pane's target ID'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like tmux_name or tmux_id.
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 over alternatives like tmux_name or tmux_id. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
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 are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the label appears in the border, omitting details such as whether labels can be overwritten, length limits, or persistence across sessions.
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 two sentences long, efficient, and includes a concrete example. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff.
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 the description covers the basic purpose. However, given the lack of output schema and context from sibling tools, more detail about the effect's permanence or interaction with other tools would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter formats, constraints, or examples.
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 action (label) and resource (tmux pane) with examples, making its purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides a hint for use ('easy addressing') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like tmux_id or tmux_resolve. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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 description implies a read-only operation ('List'), but with no annotations, it should explicitly state no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The output fields are mentioned, but behavioral traits beyond listing are not 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?
A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. Every piece of information (verb, scope, output fields) is necessary and 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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (4 fields) and the scope ('all tmux panes'), which suffices given the low complexity.
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?
No parameters exist (input schema is empty, coverage 100%). The description adds value by detailing the output fields, which is appropriate when schema offers no param info.
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 'List all tmux panes' with specific output fields (target ID, process, label, working directory). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_read which likely focuses on a single pane.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., tmux_read for individual panes). The description simply states what it does without any usage context or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool auto-prepends sender info, reply target, and correlation ID, and implements loop prevention. However, it does not mention potential errors, message length limits, or whether the message is persisted.
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?
Three sentences, each adding essential information: action/details, loop prevention, prerequisite. No redundant or extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action.
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 lacks an output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, error message). For a messaging tool, this is a notable omission that could affect an agent's decision to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have schema descriptions (coverage 100%). The tool description adds context about auto-prepended info, but does not further clarify parameter constraints or format beyond the schema. The schema descriptions for 'text' and 'target' are basic, so the description adds marginal value.
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 action: 'Send a message to another agent's pane'. It specifies key features (auto-prepended sender info, reply target, correlation ID) and includes restrictions (cannot message own pane). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_read, tmux_list, etc., which serve different purposes.
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?
The description explicitly states a prerequisite ('Must tmux_read first') and a constraint ('Cannot message your own pane'). This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it does not elaborate on alternative tools for messaging since none exist among siblings.
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?
No annotations provided, but description discloses exactly what it checks (socket, env vars, pane visibility). As a diagnostic tool, it implicitly indicates read-only behavior.
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?
Single sentence is highly concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Diagnose tmux connectivity issues'). Every word adds value.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It could hint at expected output, but not strictly necessary for a diagnostic 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?
No parameters exist. Schema coverage is 100% (empty). Description adds context about the checks performed, which is sufficient.
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 diagnoses tmux connectivity issues, checking socket, env vars, and pane visibility. It distinguishes well from sibling tools that focus on other tmux actions.
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?
Description implies usage for connectivity issues but does not explicitly state when to use or not use. No alternatives mentioned despite sibling tools.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends keys (mutative) and the prerequisite, but lacks details on side effects, error states, or idempotency.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose with examples, second states prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers action, target, key types, and a prerequisite. Lacks mention of return value or error handling, but acceptable for this complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions for 'target' and 'keys'. The description adds value by explaining 'special keys' and giving examples (e.g., C-c), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic array type.
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 action: sending special keys to a tmux pane. It provides examples (Enter, Escape, C-c) and distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_type and tmux_read.
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?
The description includes a clear prerequisite: 'Must tmux_read first.' This guides the agent on proper sequencing. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as printing an ID—a simple read operation with no side effects. The behavior is transparent for the simplicity of the tool, though no additional context (e.g., permissions, edge cases) is given.
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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives a use case. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a trivial action, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose and provides a typical use case. Nothing essential is missing.
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 no parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). With zero parameters, the description need not add parameter info. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no param details, but none are needed.
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 prints the tmux ID of the current pane, using a specific verb ('Print') and resource ('tmux ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_name (which likely prints the name) by specifying the output is the ID from $TMUX_PANE.
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?
Description mentions 'useful for self-identification when labeling', giving implied context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., tmux_name for session name, tmux_resolve for resolving IDs), nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not fully guided.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read guard (ordering requirement) but does not mention that the tool is read-only, or any permissions needed. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but could note non-destructive nature.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, read guard, target formats. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage order, target specification, and default line count. No obvious gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining 'last N lines' (reads from end) and clarifying target formats beyond schema, e.g., 'pane ID (%N), session:window.pane, or a label'.
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 'Read the last N lines from a tmux pane' (specific verb+resource) and distinguishes from siblings like tmux_type (typing) and tmux_list (listing). The target formats and read guard further clarify its role.
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?
Explicitly states the ordering constraint 'Must be called before type/keys (read guard)' and enumerates valid target formats. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use advice, but the constraint is strong guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool types without pressing Enter and mentions a read guard. While edge cases (e.g., special characters) are not covered, the core behavioral trait is clearly communicated.
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?
Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: (1) what the tool does, (2) prerequisite read guard, (3) follow-up actions. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple type tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and purpose. It lacks details on character limits or error behavior, but is largely complete for its scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra detail beyond schema examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Type text into a tmux pane WITHOUT pressing Enter.' It specifies the verb (type) and resource (tmux pane), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmux_keys by emphasizing the lack of Enter key press.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit workflow: read first, then type, then read again, then use tmux_keys to press Enter. It also implies when not to use (if you want to press Enter, use tmux_keys).
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:

[![tmux-bridge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/howardpen9/tmux-bridge-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/howardpen9/tmux-bridge-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tmux-bridge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/howardpen9/tmux-bridge-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/howardpen9/tmux-bridge-mcp)

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/howardpen9/tmux-bridge-mcp'

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