codex-bridge
Related Servers
Alternatives to codex-bridge
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that enables Claude Code to send code and plans for review by OpenAI Codex, returning structured feedback inline.5195 npm27MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that enables Claude Code to delegate tasks to Codex for real-time collaborative code generation and execution.11 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server enabling Claude to consult Codex (GPT-5.x) mid-task for second opinions, plan/diff review, brainstorming, and codebase exploration via structured debates and permission-controlled interactions.2MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that enables Claude Code to delegate code generation and debugging to OpenAI Codex, with stall detection and auto-recovery.26 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA MCP server that enables Claude Code to delegate coding tasks to Codex via the MCP protocol, with task management, security checks, and result verification.56 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA local MCP server that lets Claude delegate scoped work to Codex with structured results and guardrails, supporting planning, code review, build, reverse engineering, and long-running background tasks.11MIT
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
Each tool targets a distinct interaction mode with Codex: brainstorming, debugging, planning, deep research, session reset, code review, risk analysis of diffs, session listing, and statistics. No overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent 'codex_' prefix with a descriptive verb or noun in snake_case (e.g., codex_ask, codex_research, codex_risk_radar). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy, fitting the typical optimal range of 3–15 tools.
The set covers major interaction types with Codex (ask, debug, plan, research, review, risk analysis) along with session management and stats. A minor gap is the absence of a direct 'codex_edit' or 'codex_refactor' tool, but core workflows are well-supported.