Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-bridge

codex-bridge

by ndcorder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

codex_stats

View round-trip statistics for Claude ↔ Codex sessions: number of exchanges, latency breakdown, and per-tool usage.

Instructions

Get round-trip statistics for this session's Claude ↔ Codex collaboration. Shows number of exchanges, latency breakdown, and per-tool usage.

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_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idNoSession key to inspect; defaults to working_dir or the default session
working_dirNoOptional working directory used as implicit session key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation with no side effects. While not explicitly stating 'read-only', the description reasonably conveys behavioral traits for a statistics retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, immediately followed by specific output details. No fluff or unnecessary information; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and outputs (exchanges, latency, per-tool usage). Complete for the given complexity.

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% with both parameters (session_id, working_dir) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'round-trip statistics for this session's Claude ↔ Codex collaboration'. It lists specific outputs (exchanges, latency, per-tool usage), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_ask or codex_debug that perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context ('this session's Claude ↔ Codex collaboration') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on when not to use or alternative tools.

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