Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to codex-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to get one independent reviewer that first reasons about a problem without seeing the proposed solution, then compares it against the revealed proposal and returns a compact verdict (KEEP/MODIFY/REPLACE/INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE) with risks, an alternative, and a falsification probe before committing to expensive decisions.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Connects 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.
      6
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible agent hosts to delegate governed, read-only security audits and reviews of code, applications, agents, prompts, MCP configurations, and cloud environments through evidence-first findings and stable schemas.
      33 PyPI
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      3
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    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.

    Tool Count4/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues