Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Resolve pinned Codex MCP protocol compatibility in Connect (#152, #160)

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#460 9 comments 0 reactions 1 assignee View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

@PelikanFix16 is already working on this.

Since Oct 10, 2026.

  • #467 by @PelikanFix16 — open

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Description

Part of #152 (real-client compatibility) and #160 (supported built-in onboarding), following the independent review of PR #396. Milestone: the complete application and release.

The pinned real Codex rust-v0.160.1 asks for MCP 2025-06-18 by default. Flux currently accepts 2026-07-28; the tested connection needs --enable mcp_2026_07_28. This is recorded in development docs and the opt-in client fixture, but the product Connect flow does not yet handle the compatibility choice. Listing tools successfully does not complete #160's Start/Resume acceptance.

Outcome: choose, record and implement a truthful supported connection path for the pinned Codex client, within the existing MCP authorization and co-work contracts.

Acceptance:

  • Reproduce the default and flagged handshake with the pinned real client in Docker. Record exact client/server heads, protocol offers/results and dated primary evidence.
  • Independently review and record the compatibility decision before changing the public protocol contract: support the older protocol with verified equivalent semantics, or integrate the required invocation/flag in Connect. Preserve the existing role/scope, revocation, standing-grant and required-client-feature boundaries.
  • Make the supported invocation and any unsupported state clear in the built-in connection path. No README, manual prompt or silent protocol downgrade counts as supported onboarding. Full supplied Start/Resume remains #160's acceptance work.
  • Verify the selected path plus unsupported-version rejection and current authorization/revocation controls with the real client; add meaningful regression coverage for the changed boundary.

Owner: @PelikanFix16. Independent evaluator: @Zamojski5. Reuse the existing #152/#160 client harness and transport, without a second implementation of these domains. Source finding: the independent review on PR #396 at 699d0099e4ac7f2f2b804d00a4f09f61ce65c8dd.

Dominant language
TypeScript
Stars
3
Forks
0
Avg merge
14h 40m
Merged PRs (30d)
242

Getting set up

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from ColdPhase/flux

All issues in ColdPhase/flux

Similar issues

More TypeScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.