Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-supervisor

codex-supervisor

by redmikarimo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

List Codex approvals

codex_list_approvals
Read-onlyIdempotent

List pending app-server approvals for command execution and file changes, with optional thread filtering.

Instructions

List pending app-server requests. This release resolves command-execution and file-change approval requests; unsupported request types remain visible.

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_list_approvals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
threadIdNoOptional authorized thread filter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that unsupported request types remain visible and specifies which types this release resolves, going beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second adds scope clarification. No waste, information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the operation and adds useful context about supported versus unsupported request types. It does not specify the return format, but no output schema exists, so the description is adequate.

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?

The only parameter, threadId, is fully documented in the schema as 'Optional authorized thread filter.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the schema carries the weight.

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 ('List') and resource ('pending app-server requests'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like codex_resolve_approval and codex_list_threads. The title corroborates this.

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?

It clearly provides the context for when to use the tool (listing pending approvals). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not achieve a 5.

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