Skip to main content
Glama
jeanchristophe13v

codex-mcp-async

by jeanchristophe13v
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.2.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: synchronous execution, async execution, and result checking. No overlap exists between these operations.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools start with 'codex_', but there is a slight inconsistency: 'codex_execute' lacks a 'sync' modifier while its async counterpart has it, and 'codex_check_result' uses a noun phrase. Still, the pattern is mostly predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for its purpose of providing both sync and async code execution with result retrieval.

    Completeness3/5

    The core execution and result checking are covered, but missing features like cancelling async tasks or listing pending tasks create minor gaps in the lifecycle.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues 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 status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that execution is synchronous and that the thinking process is filtered out, but does not address error handling, timeouts, authentication needs, or potential side effects.

    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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behavioral trait (synchronous, filters thinking). No redundant information.

    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?

    Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format beyond 'core result.' It also lacks guidance on error conditions. However, the example usage helps contextualize parameter use.

    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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter documentation. The description adds a common usage example but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema.

    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 'Execute OpenAI Codex (GPT-5) synchronously' with specific verb and resource. It mentions synchronization, which hints at differentiation from the async sibling, but does not explicitly contrast them.

    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 provides a common usage example and mentions subcommands, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the async sibling or other alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

    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, so the description bears full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns running/completed status and result if available. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., task not found) or whether the call blocks.

    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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and delivers key behavioral details without wasting 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 checker tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers status outcomes and result availability, though adding a note about potential error states 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% with the schema description already explaining the parameter. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 the tool checks status of an async Codex task, with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'async Codex task'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on polling/completion, while codex_execute presumably runs synchronously and codex_execute_async initiates the task.

    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 usage after codex_execute_async by mentioning 'task_id returned by codex_execute_async' in the schema, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it provide direct alternatives beyond naming 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 are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the key behavior (async, returns task_id) but does not mention limitations, error handling, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first gives action, second explains retrieval, third states benefit. 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?

    The description covers the core asynchronous flow and how to retrieve results, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness. It could briefly mention subcommand defaults or args usage, but the schema handles that.

    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 does not add any parameter-specific information; it only describes the overall tool behavior. The schema already documents each parameter with descriptions.

    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 'Start a Codex task in the background and return immediately with a task_id', specifying the verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools by noting the asynchronous behavior and the need to use codex_check_result to retrieve results.

    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 explains that the tool allows you to continue working while Codex runs, and instructs to use codex_check_result to retrieve results later. This implies when to use it versus the synchronous codex_execute, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

    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-mcp-async MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-mcp-async 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/jeanchristophe13v/codex-mcp-async'

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