codex-claude-bridge-mcp

by nevzoom

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: creating, listing, claiming, updating tasks, and posting/reading messages. There is no overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, claim_, update_, post_, read_). The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a coordination bridge. Each tool earns its place and covers a necessary function without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full task lifecycle (create, list, claim, update) and messaging (post, read). A minor gap is the absence of a dedicated get_task or delete/archive mechanism, but update_task can handle status changes.
Average 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the task is shared and claimable, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what 'shared' means operationally. For a create operation, this leaves uncertainty about what happens after creation.
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 a single, direct, and fluff-free sentence that immediately states the core purpose. No wasted words and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or operational details needed for correct invocation, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of the three parameters (title, created_by, description) or their meanings. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 uses a specific verb (create) and resource (shared task) and highlights the unique characteristic that either Codex or Claude Code can claim it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, claim_task, and update_task.
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 a usage context: tasks created are intended to be claimable by both agents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it lists tasks. It does not mention that this is a read operation, what data is returned, whether the optional status filter limits results, or any ordering/pagination behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly states the tool's purpose in a compact way, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but important context is missing. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned task list contains. It also does not explain the optional status parameter, and the sibling read_messages tool suggests a need to differentiate this read operation from others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention the optional 'status' filter or how it affects results. The enum values in the schema are self-descriptive, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 'List tasks in the shared coordination board' uses a specific verb ('list'), a clear resource ('tasks'), and a scope ('shared coordination board'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, update_task, and post_message.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies read-only task listing but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or how it differs from read_messages or other task-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the optional task association, but omits important details such as how 'from' and 'to' work, whether messages are persisted, delivery guarantees, or any 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?
The description is a concise, single sentence that effectively front-loads the core action and the one optional modifier. Every word contributes, and no unnecessary detail is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship between sender and recipients, how the task attachment is used, or how this tool fits with read_messages and task-management siblings. An agent would likely need external knowledge to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'attached to a task' which clarifies task_id, but does not explain the semantics of 'from' and 'to', nor does it add meaning to 'text' beyond the schema's minLength.
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's function: sending a message to another agent, with an optional task attachment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_messages (reading) and task-management tools.
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 the usage: use this to send messages to another agent, optionally tied to a task. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like read_messages, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Update' (indicating mutation) but does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is under-specified. It lacks information about parameter semantics, constraints, return values, and relationships to sibling tools, making it minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names status, owner, and final result but provides no details on allowed values (e.g., status enum) or what 'result' should contain. The description adds only superficial mapping to parameters.
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 uses a specific verb (Update) and resource (task), and explicitly lists the updatable fields (status, owner, final result). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_task, list_tasks, and claim_task, which have 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 its use for modifying existing tasks by listing the fields, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over claim_task (which likely also changes owner) or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—'prevents duplicate ownership'—which implies a conflict mechanism and side effect. However, it does not detail what happens on failure or other transactional 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 a single concise sentence of 10 words that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 claim operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral guarantee. It lacks explicit parameter explanations, but the enum on owner and the task description partially compensate. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'task_id' or 'owner' parameters at all. The agent must infer their meaning from the parameter names and the owner enum, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Claim an open task before starting work; prevents duplicate ownership.' This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task or update_task by emphasizing the ownership/claiming aspect.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'before starting work' on a task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is clear enough for selecting this tool over others.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly uses 'Read,' which implies a non-destructive operation, and 'optionally filtering' conveys that unfiltered calls may return all messages. However, it does not mention permissions, response format, pagination, or any side effects, leaving room for improvement. The read nature is self-evident but lacks rich context beyond that.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Read shared messages,' and every word is informative. There is no redundant or filler content, achieving maximum conciseness.
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 low-complexity read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and filter behavior. It implies that unfiltered calls return all messages, and the read-only nature is clear. It lacks explicit notes on return structure or edge cases, but for this simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly states that filtering by task or recipient is optional, directly mapping to the task_id and recipient parameters. This adds meaningful semantics about their purpose and optionality, which the bare schema does not convey. It does not explain enum values or formats, but the schema covers those details.
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 'Read shared messages, optionally filtering for a task or recipient' clearly states the action (read), resource (shared messages), and optional filtering capability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_message (write) and task-management tools by focusing on reading messages.
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 clearly indicates the tool is for reading shared messages, implying use when retrieval is needed, and the optional filtering context is presented. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read intent is unambiguous given the sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![codex-claude-bridge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nevzoom/codex-claude-bridge-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nevzoom/codex-claude-bridge-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![codex-claude-bridge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nevzoom/codex-claude-bridge-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nevzoom/codex-claude-bridge-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/nevzoom/codex-claude-bridge-mcp'

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