AgentBridge
Related Servers
Alternatives to AgentBridge
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAgent Bridge is an MCP server that enables local agents like Codex and Claude Code to remotely control a logged-in ChatGPT Pro session in the browser, supporting automated discussions, reviews, and code implementation with secure pairing and multi-session coordination.25 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that bridges CLI coding agents like Claude Code, Codex, opencode, and Antigravity into any MCP client, enabling synchronous and asynchronous task execution, follow-up input, and a structured code review tool.223 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA local MCP server that lets Claude delegate scoped work to Codex with structured results and guardrails, supporting planning, code review, build, reverse engineering, and long-running background tasks.11MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets Claude Code and Codex delegate tasks to each other via the Agent Client Protocol.138 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA local MCP server that connects AI coding agents like Claude, Codex, and Gemini, enabling task routing, cross-model debates, and token-efficient context sharing without external APIs.15-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that bridges Claude Code with Antigravity CLI using a Swarm Agent architecture to optimize local development workflows and minimize LLM token costs. Includes a web UI for monitoring agent workflows.29718 PyPI25MIT
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: codex_run and antigravity_run target different external CLIs, and bridge_status is the health/status reporter. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The two worker tools follow a consistent <cli>_run pattern, while bridge_status deviates by using a noun instead of a verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable naming scheme.
Three tools is well-scoped for a bridge server: one for each external worker and one for status. Every tool earns its place and the count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
The core workflows of delegating to either CLI and checking bridge health are covered. Minor gaps exist around job lifecycle management (e.g., listing or canceling active jobs), but these are not critical to the stated purpose.