Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
saidelike

codex-thread-bridge

by saidelike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to codex-thread-bridge

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • agentchan

      damejeras
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to communicate with each other by sending messages and waiting for replies across sessions, supporting agents like Claude Code, Codex, and Grok.
      MIT

    • wingman

      juangurdian
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP hosts to connect to local Codex sessions for listing, reading, messaging, and interrupting them without hijacking the terminal.
      1
      MIT

    • CLI Subagents MCP Server

      lunati228
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables a host coding agent to launch and coordinate real subagent sessions in other agent CLIs and accounts, sharing existing MCP servers, skills, plugins, and instructions. Supports two-way messaging, automatic account failover, and mixed-CLI delegation while leaving credentials with the vendor CLIs.
      8
      11
      Apache 2.0

    • dsh-session-bridge-mcp

      stellarie
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Lets MCP clients open, message, wait on, read, and cancel DeepSeek Harness desktop agent sessions through a token-guarded loopback bridge, so an agent can drive another agent's sessions. Sessions appear in the app like any other, and can be watched or taken over at any time.
      6
      164 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a clearly distinct action: capabilities, thread creation variants, listing/reading/waiting, goal inspection, and operation receipt inspection. Even the two creation tools are sharply separated by the worktree behavior, and send_message_to_thread has no overlap with the create or read tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names are lowercase snake_case and verb-led, following a consistent verb_noun structure such as create_thread, list_threads, read_thread, get_goal, and get_operation. The one compound name, send_message_to_thread, is still semantically aligned and does not introduce a different convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well within the ideal range for a bridge server. Each tool covers a distinct lifecycle or inspection concern without redundancy, and the count feels proportionate to the domain.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflow is well covered: create threads, send messages, read/wait on turns, and inspect goals or operation receipts. Minor gaps exist around thread lifecycle management (no archive/delete) and goal mutation, but these appear intentionally left to external ownership and can be worked around.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources