Skip to main content
Glama
jmorille

mcp-server-codex

by jmorille
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Review code with Codex

codex_review

Run automated code review on uncommitted changes, branch diffs, or specific commits, with optional custom instructions.

Instructions

Run a Codex code review over uncommitted changes (default), a diff against a base branch, or a specific commit. Optionally steer it with custom instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory for the run. Must sit inside the server allowlist. Defaults to the first allowed root.
baseNoReview the diff against this base branch.
modelNoModel slug, e.g. "gpt-5.5". Defaults to the Codex configuration.
titleNoTitle shown in the review summary.
commitNoReview the changes introduced by this commit SHA.
configNoRaw Codex config overrides as key=value, TOML-parsed, e.g. 'model_reasoning_effort="high"'.
enableNoCodex feature flags to enable for this run.
imagesNoImage files to attach to the prompt. Each must be inside the allowlist.
promptNoCustom review instructions, e.g. "focus on race conditions".
disableNoCodex feature flags to disable for this run.
sandboxNoSandbox for commands Codex runs. "read-only" forbids writes, "workspace-write" (default) allows writes inside the workspace, "danger-full-access" removes all limits and is refused unless the server was started with CODEX_MCP_ALLOW_DANGEROUS=1.
worktreeNoRun in a fresh managed git worktree instead of the working directory.
ephemeralNoDo not persist the session to disk. It cannot be resumed afterwards.
uncommittedNoReview staged, unstaged and untracked changes. This is the default.
output_schemaNoPath to a JSON Schema file constraining the shape of the agent final response.
timeout_secondsNoHow long to wait inline before handing back a job_id and continuing in the background. 0 means return immediately. Defaults to the server setting (120s).
skip_git_repo_checkNoAllow running outside a git repository.
dangerously_bypass_approvals_and_sandboxNoRemove every approval and sandbox check. Refused unless CODEX_MCP_ALLOW_DANGEROUS=1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.4

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose important behavioral traits: a Codex review can run commands under a configurable sandbox, write to the workspace, and continue in the background after the inline timeout, but none of that appears here. The annotations do signal readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic review action.

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 with no filler; the main purpose and default behavior are front-loaded, and optional customization comes second. This is appropriately concise given that the schema already carries the detailed parameter documentation.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and asynchronous behavior implied by timeout_seconds and job_id, the short description is thin: it does not tell the agent what to expect back (inline result vs. job_id) or how the review interacts with sandbox and background execution. The rich parameter schema partially compensates, making this minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description usefully summarizes the main review targets (uncommitted, base, commit) and the prompt parameter, but those map closely to the already-detailed schema fields and add grouping rather than genuinely new semantics.

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 opens with a specific action ('Run a Codex code review') and clearly names the input scopes: uncommitted changes (default), a diff against a base branch, or a specific commit. This makes its purpose distinct from siblings like codex_exec and codex_apply even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool by describing the three review scopes and marking uncommitted changes as the default, so an agent knows what will happen if no target is specified. It also mentions optional custom instructions. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like codex_exec for broader tasks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools