M
MCP Directory CURATED DIRECTORY
911 MCP servers indexed
中文
← Back to directory
COMPARE UP TO 4 SERVERS

Compare MCP servers

Compare scores, permissions, risks, and fit in one decision-focused table.

DimensionCodex MCP ServerConnect Codex CLI to MCP clients for automated code analysis and editing.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS46 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability5 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions7 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance11 / 2016 / 20
Documentation12 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience11 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Developers who want to integrate Codex CLI into AI-assisted editors.
  • Teams that need automated code analysis or editing.
  • Users seeking to use Codex models within the MCP ecosystem.
  • Engineering teams scaling AI coding agents while controlling spend
  • Platform teams that need auditable, rollback-aware agent execution records
  • Organizations using multiple agents (Claude, Codex, Gemini) under one governed flow
Not for
  • Users requiring official OpenAI support or endorsement.
  • Users who do not use Codex CLI or Node.js.
  • Users needing fully unsupervised high-risk automation (such as yolo mode, not recommended).
  • Developers who just want a simple code-completion helper without run governance
  • Teams unwilling to accept local JSONL run records with HMAC signing
  • Environments without a supported adapter (Claude/Codex/Gemini CLIs, direct provider, or verifier-only)
Required permissions
  • Requires filesystem access to read code files (depending on sandbox mode).
  • Can modify workspace files in `workspace-write` mode.
  • Has full system access in `danger-full-access` mode (not recommended).
  • May require network access depending on configuration and tasks.
  • Read/write access to the configured repo root (writable scope restrictable via --allow-path/--deny-path)
  • Ability to invoke the chosen agent CLI (Claude/Codex/Gemini, etc.) and its underlying model account
  • Local disk writes for run records, receipts, and share outputs (share/run-receipt., etc.)
  • Execution of user-configured verifier commands (e.g. npm test)
Risks and side effects
  • Setting sandbox mode to `danger-full-access` or `yolo` may lead to unintended modifications or data loss.
  • Automated code edits may introduce errors or security issues.
  • Codex CLI requires authentication and may incur API costs.
  • Using @file references may expose sensitive code content.
  • Verifier commands are executed; poorly chosen verifier commands carry security risk despite preflight policy checks
  • Cost and token figures may be estimates (labeled with provenance) and should not be treated as settled accounting
  • Receipt integrity must be verified before use as trustworthy evidence; missing rollback evidence is flagged as EVIDENCE_BOUNDARY
  • Policy defaults come from martin.config.yaml and can be overridden by CLI flags; misconfiguration can loosen safety boundaries
Supported clientsClaude Desktop, Claude CodeClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools60