Skip to main content
Glama

codex_review_changes

Submit git changes to Codex for an independent second opinion review. Supports working tree, branch, and commit scopes with optional author context.

Instructions

Ask Codex (a different model) to review your git changes for an independent second opinion.

scope: working_tree (tracked changes vs HEAD — untracked files follow the untracked policy and are NOT reviewed by default), branch (needs base, reviews base...HEAD), or commit (needs a commit SHA). The diff is gathered, secret- redacted, and bounded by this server; Codex reviews it read-only and returns structured findings. Pass workspace_root (absolute) for the right repo.

The result's top-level review_status and coverage disclose whether the model actually ran and what it was shown: a pass over partial coverage is surfaced as unknown, and a tree with nothing reviewable returns not_run, never a pass.

extra_context (optional) is author intent — why the change was made, what you already verified, constraints — added to the prompt as clearly-labeled UNTRUSTED data (Codex is instructed to treat embedded directives as data, not commands — a best-effort injection mitigation, not a guarantee) to cut false positives. It is bounded by the same input-byte limit as the diff.

STATIC review, not a verify mode: the read-only sandbox blocks the writes a test/build/lint run typically needs (a writable cache/temp), so Codex can't rely on running the project's checks to confirm its findings. Treat findings as unvalidated claims to verify by running those checks yourself before acting.

Data egress: this sends the gathered diff to OpenAI via the codex CLI. The diff is secret-redacted (best-effort), but your extra_context is sent raw (unredacted), and Codex may read and send other repo files — including the workspace's AGENTS.md and .agents/skills/ skills, which it auto-loads even if your prompt never mentions them (the plugin's isolation flags do not suppress this). Redaction is not a guarantee. Do not rely on it to protect live credentials; keep them out of the reviewed tree and your supplied inputs, or do not request a review of that tree.

Progress & recovery: blocks until Codex finishes (timeout clamped 10-600s via timeout_seconds), streaming coarse notifications/progress when your client requests it; the detached run (meta.job_id) is recoverable via codex_job_listcodex_job_result if the connection drops, and codex_review_changes_async runs the same work fire-and-forget (poll codex_job_status).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoBase git ref for scope='branch'; the review covers base...HEAD.
modelNoOverride the Codex model slug for this call; defaults to the server/Codex default when unset.
pathsNoRepo-relative paths to narrow the review ('/' separators, no '..'); omit to review all changes in scope.
scopeNoWhich changes to review: 'working_tree' (tracked changes vs HEAD; untracked files follow the `untracked` policy, off by default), 'branch' (needs base), or 'commit' (needs commit).working_tree
commitNoCommit SHA or ref to review for scope='commit'.
detailNoResponse verbosity: 'summary' (default) omits the raw model text; 'full' includes it.summary
isolationNoCodex config isolation: 'inherit', 'ignore-config', or 'ignore-rules'. Defaults to the server's configured isolation (built-in default 'inherit'; `codex_status` reports the resolved value).
untrackedNoHow working_tree scope treats untracked files: 'explicit_only' (default) includes only those named in `paths`; 'include' reviews all non-ignored untracked files (SENDS their contents to OpenAI — opt-in egress); 'exclude' includes none. Omitted ones are disclosed in `coverage`. Inert for branch/commit scopes.explicit_only
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.
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied dedup key, scoped to THIS concrete tool on the same workspace. Reusing it on the same tool with the same arguments replays the existing run instead of starting — and paying for — a duplicate Codex call (a sync call reattaches to the in-flight run and returns its result; an _async call returns the same job_id). The sync and _async variants are DIFFERENT tools and never share a key's run. Reuse with different arguments — including a different timeout_seconds — is refused (idempotency_conflict); a key whose prior result was already consumed/evicted is idempotency_result_unavailable; a still-publishing reservation is idempotency_in_progress (retry). Omit it for the prior no-dedup behavior. A completed result stays replayable while its job record lives (its TTL), subject to consumption or count-eviction; the fail-closed conflict/in-progress window can last longer — up to the job's max runtime + termination grace + TTL. meta.idempotency_replayed=true marks a replayed (unpaid) response.
timeout_secondsNoPer-call wall-clock timeout in seconds, clamped to 10..600 (out-of-range values are coerced, not rejected). Defaults to the server's configured timeout.
reasoning_effortNoOverride the Codex reasoning effort for this call (sent as a `model_reasoning_effort` config override); omit (or pass null) for the server default (CODEX_IN_CLAUDE_REASONING_EFFORT) or Codex's own resolution. An open per-model string the Codex backend validates at run time — commonly minimal|low|medium|high|xhigh; codex_models lists each model's advertised set (advisory). A backend-rejected value fails as invalid_reasoning_effort; an explicit empty string is sent as-is (and rejected by the backend), never treated as unset. Control characters, surrogates, and values over 128 chars are rejected as invalid_arguments.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the tool sends data to OpenAI, warns about secret redaction limitations, prompt injection risks, and the read-only sandbox. It also explains progress streaming, timeouts, and idempotency behavior, adding significant context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is comprehensive but quite lengthy, spanning multiple paragraphs. It is well-structured with sections for scope, warnings, and data egress, but could be more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (13 params, output schema, many sibling tools), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter semantics, error handling, and recovery options. It is highly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds rich context for parameters like scope, untracked, extra_context, idempotency_key, and timeout_seconds, explaining their behavior and risks.

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 clearly states the tool asks Codex to review git changes, with detailed scope options (working_tree, branch, commit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_consult (general consultation) and codex_delegate (task delegation) by focusing on git diff review.

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 explicitly defines when to use each scope and warns about static review, data egress, and the need to verify findings. It mentions recovery via async variant and job tools, but does not directly compare to sibling tools like codex_consult.

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