Skip to main content
Glama
ximenchuifeng

Codex Kimi Bridge

by ximenchuifeng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Codex Kimi Bridge

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MiMo Bridge MCP

      Ichliebedich1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables Codex to delegate bounded coding tasks to MiMo Code through a shared local daemon, supporting task boundaries, Git Worktrees, and a collaborative review workflow.
      3
      MIT

    • Claude Code Bridge

      Cyruskraad
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Lets Codex delegate coding and repository work to an installed Claude Code CLI with permission-aware inspect/write access, model and effort selection, resumable and cloud-attached sessions, and durable synchronous or asynchronous jobs.
      MIT

    • codex-mcp-proxy

      rengarcia
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables Claude Code to use remote MCP servers already authenticated in Codex by reusing Codex OAuth tokens and forwarding JSON-RPC messages without requiring a second OAuth flow.
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    D1.8/5.0

    Scored across 11 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Without descriptions, many tools are ambiguous. Similar names like 'kimi_delegate_and_wait' and 'kimi_delegate_task' or 'kimi_recent_sessions' and 'kimi_find_recent_session' suggest overlapping purposes, making it hard to distinguish between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools follow the 'kimi_' prefix and use snake_case. Most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'kimi_abort', 'kimi_continue_task'), though a few are noun-based like 'kimi_bridge_status' or 'kimi_recent_sessions', which is a minor deviation.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a bridge service. It covers a variety of operations without being excessive or insufficient, striking a good balance.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool names suggest task management and session handling, but there are noticeable gaps like missing 'create_task' or 'cancel_task'. Core operations like delegation and review are present, but the surface feels incomplete for a full workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources