Skip to main content
Glama
kky42

codex-as-mcp

by kky42
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools are clearly distinguished by singular vs. parallel operation, with descriptions explicitly stating that spawn_agents_parallel handles multiple agents at once. However, both share the core 'spawn agent' purpose, so they could be confused if the agent doesn't read carefully.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use consistent snake_case with the verb 'spawn' followed by a noun, and the parallel tool adds a clear '_parallel' suffix. The naming pattern is predictable and easy to follow.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal. While the focus is narrow (spawning Codex agents), two tools is on the thin side and could arguably be combined into one with a loop.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the fundamental operations: spawning a single agent or multiple in parallel. Minor gaps include lack of configuration options (e.g., working directory or model), but these are not essential for the core purpose.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.

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

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the working directory inherits from the MCP process and that the return is clean Codex CLI output, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or execution constraints, leaving notable gaps.

    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 appropriately structured with a clear opening line, a brief explanatory paragraph, and then Args/Returns sections. It is mostly concise, though the cwd resolution explanation is slightly verbose. Overall, it earns its place.

    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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational detail (cwd resolution) and the return format. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could add a note about the parallel sibling.

    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 schema provides zero parameter descriptions, but the description's 'Args' section explains that 'prompt' should contain all instructions/context needed for the task. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, compensating for the lack of schema-description coverage.

    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 tool spawns a Codex agent in the current working directory, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool spawn_agents_parallel, so it falls short of a 5.

    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 explains how the working directory is resolved but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the parallel alternative. There is no mention of criteria like single vs. multiple agents, so the agent is left without clear selection cues.

    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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that each spawned agent reuses the server's current working directory (os.getcwd()) and describes the return structure. This adds valuable context beyond the raw function name, though it does not cover all potential side effects or concurrency details.

    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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a behavioral note, and compact Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place with no redundant 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?

    The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter shape, and return format, which is sufficient for its simplicity. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly referencing the singular spawn_agent alternative, but overall it provides all necessary operational context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains that agents must be a list of objects with a 'prompt' entry and provides a concrete example, which is much richer than the bare schema definition.

    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 'Spawn multiple Codex agents in parallel,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool spawn_agent by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'in parallel'.

    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 implies use when multiple agents need to be spawned concurrently ('Spawn multiple Codex agents in parallel'), and the sibling context reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives by name.

    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-as-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-as-mcp 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/kky42/codex-as-mcp'

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