Skip to main content
Glama

codex_run

Delegate a coding task to the Codex CLI, specify model and effort per call, and receive back git-verified file changes along with AgentBridge's independent verification output.

Instructions

Delegate a task to the Codex CLI running as an external worker, using your existing Codex login (no API key). Model and reasoning effort are chosen per call and never inherited from global Codex config. Returns the worker's final result plus git-verified files_changed and scope_violations, and — unless skipped — a verification block holding the real output of the project's checks, which AgentBridge runs itself. One call = one attempt; AgentBridge never retries on its own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesWhat the worker must accomplish. Be specific and self-contained.
modeYesanalyze/review are read-only investigations; implement makes changes and runs checks.
modelYesCodex model to run, passed to the CLI verbatim. gpt-5.6-sol is the strongest general engineering model, gpt-5.6-terra the deep brownfield/existing-codebase specialist, gpt-5.6-luna the economical high-volume workhorse. Availability is checked against the installed CLI's own model catalogue; an unavailable model fails with requested_model_unavailable and is never substituted.
testsNoTests or checks the worker should run. Context for the worker only — use `verify_commands` for anything AgentBridge should execute.
effortYesReasoning effort: light->low, medium->medium, high->high, 'extra high'->xhigh, max->max.
contextNoBackground the worker needs but cannot infer from the repository.
contractNoInterfaces, types, or API shapes the worker must conform to exactly.
no_touchNoProject-relative paths the worker must not modify.
allowed_pathsNoProject-relative paths the worker may write. Required in implement mode; overlapping scopes across concurrent implement jobs are rejected.
relevant_filesNoProject-relative files the worker should look at first.
timeout_secondsNoWall-clock limit for the worker process. Default 900s, clamped to 30-3600s.
verify_commandsNoCommands AgentBridge runs itself in the project directory after the worker exits, e.g. ["npm run typecheck", "node --import tsx --test"]. Their real output comes back in `verification`. Run without a shell, so no pipes, redirection, or `&&`. Omitted in implement mode, AgentBridge derives them from the project's own `typecheck` and `test` scripts.
skip_verificationNoSet true to skip AgentBridge's own checks for this job. The result then carries only the worker's account of whether the change works.
acceptance_criteriaNoConditions that must hold for the job to be considered done.
verify_timeout_secondsNoWall-clock limit for each verification command. Default 300s.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: authentication via existing login, per-call model/effort choices, git-verified files_changed and scope_violations, the verification block auto-run by AgentBridge, skip_verification semantics, and the no-retry policy. It also mentions error behavior (requested_model_unavailable) in schema but the main description adds substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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 dense but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, authentication, behavioral semantics, and verification details. It is front-loaded with the core action and flows logically. Slightly long but appropriate for a 15-parameter tool; no fluff detected.

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 complexity (15 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the verification process, git-verified outputs, retry behavior, and model availability handling. It does not detail return value structure, but since there is no output schema, the description covers the essential outcomes (result, files_changed, scope_violations, verification block) sufficiently.

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 minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides; it does note that model is passed verbatim and verification runs without a shell, but these are already in schema descriptions. No extra compensation needed, but also no significant enhancement.

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 delegates a task to the Codex CLI external worker, specifying the resource (Codex CLI) and the verb (Delegate). It distinguishes from siblings by naming Codex explicitly, and includes details like 'no API key' and 'one call = one attempt' that set it apart from antigravity_run.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus antigravity_run or bridge_status. It mentions configuration behavior (model/effort per call, no global inheritance) and retry policy, but fails to state conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives. This is a gap given the sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/is-bo/agentbridge'

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