Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-bridge

codex-bridge

by ndcorder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

codex_sessions

Retrieve active sessions with recency and activity data to track multiple clients using the same bridge process.

Instructions

List active in-memory sessions with recency and activity summary. Useful when running multiple clients against one bridge process.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "codex_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum sessions to list (default: 50, max: 500)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'List active in-memory sessions', implying a read-only operation, and indicates what is included in the output. This is clear, though it could be more explicit about non-destructive nature or lack of 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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage context. No extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers its core function and usage context adequately for a simple listing tool. Could benefit from mentioning output format or ordering, but not essential.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', with a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 states 'List active in-memory sessions with recency and activity summary' which is a specific verb (List) and resource (active in-memory sessions), and adds detail about what the output includes (recency and activity summary). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like codex_ask or codex_debug.

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 includes 'Useful when running multiple clients against one bridge process', providing clear context for when to use the tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but no other sibling tool overlaps in functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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