codex-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to codex-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables coding agents to request, track, and verify independent cross-model reviews with structured findings, attachment hashes, and provenance receipts via Chrome Bridge, Codex, or Responses transports.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables code agents to run risk-based Jev quality reviews on focused diffs through a read-only MCP tool, returning structured scores and weakness hints without modifying code.MIT

bounty-operatorofficial
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceConnects MCP clients to pre-submission review that argues against a draft bug-bounty report or smart-contract finding the way a triager would, tying every claim to a supplied file and line and returning a submit, rewrite-then-submit, prove-first, hold-duplicate or drop verdict. Exposes tools to list review profiles, prepare reviews for the agent's own model, build hash-verified review packets, and — with a connection token — run hosted profiles on your own provider key.62MIT- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to submit work for external review before declaring a task done, receiving evidence-backed fix lists and verdicts based on git-measured changes and calibrated quality scoring.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides tools for agents to manage a local review graph, tracking acceptance behaviors, evidence, review passes, and human waivers to decouple review convergence from shipping readiness.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA local-first, auditable code review MCP server that freezes Git changes, creates immutable ReviewBundles, provides role-isolated contexts for correctness, security, architecture, and test reviewers, validates structured findings, and generates deterministic JSON/Markdown reports.3 npm1Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: codex_qualify runs independent reviews, codex_auth_status checks authentication, and codex_capabilities reports reachable evidence and restrictions. No overlap between these three surfaces.
All tools share the 'codex_' prefix and use lowercase underscore-separated names. The verbs are consistent (qualify, status, capabilities), though 'auth_status' and 'capabilities' are noun-like rather than pure verbs, but the overall pattern is uniform and predictable.
With three tools, the server is compact but not thin—each tool addresses a distinct concern (qualification, auth, capabilities). The scope is narrow and focused, so this count is appropriate and not bloated.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: verifying auth before reviews, checking what the server can reach, and running a qualification review. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no history or cancellation tools), but they are not essential to the server's stated purpose and agents can work around them.