Skip to main content
Glama
nayagamez

codex-cli-mcp

by nayagamez
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.4.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: codex starts a new conversation, while codex-reply continues an existing one using a thread ID. There is no ambiguity between them, as each accepts different inputs and performs a different action.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names share the 'codex' prefix, but 'codex' is a standalone verb while 'codex-reply' is a compound with a hyphen. This is a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is predictable and readable, clearly indicating the primary action and the continuation action.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is on the low end of the range, but it is appropriate for the narrow scope of running Codex CLI sessions. The tools cover the essential start and continue operations, though the set feels thin compared to more comprehensive servers.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle of starting and continuing a conversation is covered, which covers the main use case. However, there are no tools for listing active threads, ending sessions, or retrieving session history, which are minor gaps given the focus on interactive coding tasks.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it executes a subprocess, returns a result, and provides a Thread ID, but it does not warn about potential side effects (e.g., file modifications depending on sandbox mode) or mention authorization requirements. The sandbox parameter is defined in the schema, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond basic execution.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a brief usage note. Every sentence adds value—mentioning the subprocess execution, result return, Thread ID, and continuation with codex-reply. There is no redundancy or filler.

    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?

    The tool is complex with 8 documented parameters and no output schema. The description gives enough to start a task and mention the Thread ID, but it does not describe the overall return structure, error behavior, or caveats like long-running operations (despite a timeout parameter). It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully predict behavior.

    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. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameters, but the schema thoroughly documents each one, including enums for effort and sandbox. Therefore, the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 runs a Codex CLI session via `codex exec` and returns the result, which is specific and distinguishable from the sibling tool codex-reply. The mention of starting a new coding task and providing a Thread ID for continuation reinforces its distinct role.

    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 explicitly says to use this tool for starting a new coding task and implies codex-reply is for continuing, but it does not explicitly state 'do not use when continuing' or list exclusions. This is clear enough for an agent to decide, though a more explicit alternative comparison would make it stronger.

    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?

    The description discloses the underlying mechanism ('uses codex exec resume', 'loads the previous session from disk'), adding useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., code execution, file modifications) or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, more behavioral disclosure would be valuable.

    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 two sentences: purpose then mechanism. It is front-loaded, concise (~30 words), with 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?

    With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and mechanism but lacks details on return values, error handling, or safety considerations. Sufficient as a minimal viable but not fully complete for a tool that may execute code.

    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?

    Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the purpose of threadId and prompt but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 continues a Codex CLI conversation using a thread ID and follow-up prompt, with a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('Codex CLI conversation'). It distinguishes from sibling 'codex' by explicitly referencing 'previous codex call', implying this is for follow-ups.

    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 provides clear usage context: you need a thread ID from a previous call. It implicitly differentiates from starting a new conversation but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like 'codex'.

    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-cli-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-cli-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/nayagamez/codex-cli-mcp'

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