Skip to main content
Glama
theotherkim

codex-gemini-bridge

by theotherkim
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'gemini' sends prompts and returns text completions, while 'gemini_models' lists available models. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both names share the 'gemini' prefix, but one is a bare noun and the other uses an underscore suffix. This is readable and predictable, though it doesn't follow a strict verb_noun pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels extremely thin for a general bridge. However, the scope is limited to prompt execution and model listing, so the count is borderline acceptable.

    Completeness4/5

    The core functions of sending prompts and listing models are covered, including support for conversation history via IDs. Minor gaps exist, such as streaming or explicit model selection parameters in the main tool, but the essential workflow is usable.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is local to the Antigravity CLI and returns filtered model ids and display names. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes, though for a simple list operation these may be less critical.

    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?

    The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and separates the return value. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler, earning the highest score.

    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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the local scope, the list action, and the return fields. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from explicit sibling differentiation.

    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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) of the 'filter' parameter, describing it as a case-insensitive substring. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'filtered' output, but it does not explain parameter syntax or behavior beyond the schema.

    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 clearly states the tool lists models available to the local Antigravity CLI, using a specific action ('List') and resource ('models'). It also mentions the return format (filtered model ids and display names), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'gemini' tool that likely performs a different action.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies the tool is used to discover available models, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling 'gemini' tool. No alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving room for confusion in tool selection.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavioral traits. It discloses what is returned (model text, interaction_id, model, usage metadata, status), a safety guarantee ('Never returns credentials'), and the conditional behavior of store=true generating a conversation_id. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, it covers the most critical behavior for an AI agent selecting this tool.

    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?

    The description is four sentences, approximately 70 words, with each sentence contributing unique information: purpose, default model, store mechanism, return values and safety. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant filler, making it highly efficient.

    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?

    Given the tool complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's operation, return fields, and conversation continuation. It does not cover error scenarios or detailed response formatting, but the schema covers parameter specifics, and the description lists the key output components.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between store and previous_interaction_id, and by stating the default model, which complements the schema. It does not describe every parameter but enriches the context for the conversation flow.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Send a prompt to the local Antigravity CLI and return the model text output.' This is specific with a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'gemini_models', missing the chance to contrast with a likely model-listing tool.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description provides useful context about the default model, store=true for conversation continuation, and return values. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gemini_models) or any when-not scenarios. The usage is implied but not explicitly framed as a choice.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

codex-gemini-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-gemini-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/theotherkim/codex-gemini-bridge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server