Skip to main content
Glama
parisbs

codex-subagent-mcp

by parisbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Check the Codex CLI installation

codex_doctor
Read-only

Check whether the local Codex CLI is installed, recent enough, signed in and able to load its configuration, and report the exact steps to fix it if not.

Instructions

Check whether the local Codex CLI is installed, recent enough, signed in and able to load its configuration, and report the exact steps to fix it if not. Run this when any other tool reports the CLI is unavailable, or before relying on delegation for the first time. It only inspects the installation; it never installs or repairs anything. Opt in with extended for a slow, networked config.load report from codex doctor --json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNoRe-probe the CLI instead of reusing the cached diagnosis.
extendedNoRun the slow, networked Codex doctor report in addition to the cheap diagnosis.
working_dirNoAbsolute directory to run the check in. Codex loads the configuration of the directory it runs in, so pass the one a delegation would use. Defaults to this server's own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / extended
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Run the slow, networked Codex doctor report in addition to the cheap diagnosis.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / working_dir
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute directory to run the check in. Codex loads the configuration of the directory it runs in, so pass the one a delegation would use. Defaults to this server's own.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond them: it explicitly guarantees that this tool never installs or repairs anything, warns that extended triggers a slow networked config.load report, and notes caching behavior through refresh in the schema. This is exactly the kind of extra behavioral detail that annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage triggers, then the behavioral constraint and the opt-in cost. No sentence is wasted.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is checked, when to run it, and the safety stance. The return format is only loosely described (exact fix steps, codex doctor --json report), which is a minor gap but not enough to block correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description only implicitly explains the effect of extended (slow networked config.load report); refresh and working_dir add nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether the local Codex CLI is installed, recent enough, signed in, and able to load configuration. It also covers the failure path (report fix steps), and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as codex_delegate, which actually uses the CLI or relies on it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit triggers are given: run it when any other tool reports the CLI is unavailable, or before relying on delegation for the first time. It also sets a clear boundary, saying it only inspects the installation and never installs or repairs anything, so the agent knows this is not a repair tool.

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