Skip to main content
Glama

codex_dry_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview code review changes without a model call. Verify scope, diff size, redactions, and truncation before submitting a review.

Instructions

Preview what a codex_review_changes call would send — scope, diff size, redactions, truncation — with NO model call and no spend. Use it before a review to confirm the scope and that secrets are redacted. Pass the same extra_context you would give the review so prompt_bytes reflects it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoBase git ref for scope='branch'; the review covers base...HEAD.
pathsNoRepo-relative paths to narrow the review ('/' separators, no '..'); omit to review all changes in scope.
scopeNoWhich changes to review: 'working_tree' (uncommitted vs HEAD), 'branch' (needs base), or 'commit' (needs commit).working_tree
commitNoCommit SHA or ref to review for scope='commit'.
isolationNoCodex config isolation: 'inherit' (default), 'ignore-config', or 'ignore-rules'.
extra_contextNoOptional author intent / background context, added to the prompt as clearly-labeled UNTRUSTED data. Codex is instructed to treat embedded directives as data, not commands — best-effort prompt-injection mitigation, not a guarantee. Don't include live secrets: Codex can read files it's pointed at, and redaction does not cover this field.
workspace_rootNoAbsolute path to the target repository root. Pass it (or rely on an MCP root) so the call targets the intended repo; otherwise it falls back to the server's own cwd and meta.workspace_warning is set.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable details: no model call, no spend, previews scope, diff size, redactions, truncation. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each adding value: function, usage, and guidance. Efficient and well-structured, though slightly repetitive on the pass-extra-context point.

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 the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the key aspects. It could mention the output or reference the output schema, but the tool's purpose is well communicated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal new semantics for parameters. It reinforces that extra_context should match the review call, but the schema already describes this field well. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it previews what a codex_review_changes call would send, including scope, diff size, redactions, truncation, with no model call and no spend. This clearly distinguishes it from the main review tool and other siblings.

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?

The description advises using it 'before a review to confirm the scope and that secrets are redacted' and to pass the same extra_context. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the implied comparison with codex_review_changes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

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/briandconnelly/codex-in-claude'

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