Skip to main content
Glama
xiaolai

Codex Octopus

by xiaolai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: `codex` initiates a new autonomous task and returns a thread_id, while `codex_reply` explicitly requires that thread_id to continue an existing conversation. No functional overlap exists.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools share the `codex` prefix which groups them logically, and `codex_reply` clearly indicates its action. However, the base tool `codex` lacks a descriptive action verb (e.g., `codex_send` or `codex_start`) despite its description emphasizing sending tasks, creating a minor inconsistency in the naming pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is borderline thin for a server claiming to handle 'complex software engineering tasks end-to-end.' While the initiate-respond loop is functional, the lack of supporting operations (list threads, check status, cancel) makes the surface feel constrained rather than comprehensively scoped.

    Completeness3/5

    The core conversational workflow is covered (start thread, continue thread), but significant lifecycle operations are missing: there is no way to list active threads, retrieve thread history without continuing, cancel running tasks, or delete threads. These gaps limit agent ability to manage long-running or parallel autonomous tasks.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 25 commits 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 ISC 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys stateful behavior ('build on prior context') but lacks disclosure of error handling (invalid thread_id), side effects, output format, or rate limit behaviors expected for a conversational 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?

    Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core action; second provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or tautology.

    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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and differentiation from siblings. Minor gap: no mention of error scenarios (e.g., expired threads) or what constitutes a valid thread_id format.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description does not redundantly explain parameters already well-documented in schema (thread_id, prompt), nor does it mention optional parameters (cwd, model), but no additional semantic clarification is required given complete schema coverage.

    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 explicitly states the action ('Continue'), resource ('codex conversation'), and mechanism ('by thread ID'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'codex' tool which likely initiates new conversations. The scope is precise and specific.

    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?

    Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for follow-up questions, iterative refinement, or multi-step workflows') that implies continuation versus new conversation. Could be strengthened by explicitly contrasting when NOT to use it versus the sibling 'codex' tool.

    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?

    Strong given no annotations: Explicitly discloses destructive capabilities ('reads/writes files', 'runs shell commands') and return format ('result text plus thread_id'). Would benefit from mention of execution duration, error handling, or sandbox safety implications beyond the parameter hints.

    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?

    Perfect: Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action ('Send a task'), middle sentence lists capabilities, final sentence covers return value and sibling relationship. Every sentence earns its place.

    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?

    Adequate for complexity: With 10 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description appropriately compensates for missing output schema by documenting return values (thread_id, result text). Mentions sibling relationship which is crucial. Minor gap: could clarify synchronous vs asynchronous behavior or lifecycle for such an autonomous agent.

    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?

    Baseline score: With 100% schema description coverage, the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It adds context about the 'prompt' (task/question nature) implicitly through the agent description, but doesn't elaborate on specific parameters like 'approvalPolicy' or 'sandboxMode' semantics beyond the schema enums.

    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?

    Excellent: 'Send a task to an autonomous Codex agent' provides specific verb+resource. Capabilities list ('reads/writes files, runs shell commands...') clearly scopes functionality. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'codex_reply' by noting this tool initiates tasks while the sibling handles follow-ups.

    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?

    Good: Establishes workflow relationship with sibling by stating returns include 'thread_id for follow-ups via codex_reply'. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., when to use codex_reply directly instead).

    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-octopus MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

codex-octopus 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/xiaolai/codex-octopus'

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