In this question, it is argued that constructive mathematics cannot prove the existence of a discontinuous real function, because there is a topos $\mathcal{E}$ where all real functions are continuous. However it is not clear to me why the mere existence of this topos $\mathcal{E}$ affects constructive frameworks like Coq, Agda or Homotopy type theory. If we managed to define a discontinuous function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ in Coq, it would produce a contradiction in $\mathcal{E}$ only if $\mathcal{E}$ can interpret $f$ and all the Coq machinery that was used to define $f$.
For instance the Coq model I know in the topos of sets needs the extra assumption that there is a countable infinity of inaccessible cardinals (to interpret Coq's universes). And I doubt that topos $\mathcal{E}$ automatically has those inaccessible cardinals. Furthermore, if we add the excluded middle axiom in Coq we will easily define discontinuous real functions, and that will still be fine in $\mathcal{E}$, because $\mathcal{E}$ cannot interpret the excluded middle.
So I wonder whether topoi like $\mathcal{E}$ only give favorable clues, but not proofs, that some propositions cannot be proved constructively.