Skip to main content
Glama

Review git changes in background (paid)

codex_review_changes_async

Review your git changes in the background and receive a job ID immediately, ideal for large or branch-wide reviews that exceed synchronous limits.

Instructions

Review your git changes in the background; get a job_id back immediately.

PAID — this spends Codex quota on every new call; use codex_dry_run or codex_status (both free) first if you only need to check scope or readiness.

Same read-only behavior as codex_review_changes (the diff is gathered, secret- redacted, and bounded, then reviewed read-only), but detached — prefer it for a multi-file or whole-branch review that can exceed the synchronous deadline (built-in default 300s), since a sync run whose deadline expires loses its partial work; this job's own deadline is separately configured (built-in default 1800s). The diff is gathered inside the job, so a bad base/commit comes back as the same structured error with zero spend (a bad scope is rejected by MCP input validation before the job starts). Starting a job commits to spend. Poll codex_job_status; read/consume the review envelope with codex_job_result/codex_job_consume_result; stop with codex_job_cancel. Pass workspace_root (absolute).

Data egress: same as codex_review_changes — sends the secret-redacted diff plus your raw (unredacted) extra_context to OpenAI via the codex CLI; Codex may also read other repo files. Codex auto-loads the resolved workspace's AGENTS.md and discovers skills in its .agents/skills/ and user-global $CODEX_HOME/skills/ (default ~/.codex/skills/), reachable from outside the workspace. Redaction is best-effort, not a guarantee.

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'.
isolationNoCodex config isolation: 'inherit' | 'ignore-config' | 'ignore-rules'. Defaults to the server's configured value (built-in 'inherit'; `codex_status` reports the resolved one).
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 as clearly-labeled UNTRUSTED prompt data. Redaction does NOT cover it — no live secrets. Full caveats and bounds: codex://params.
workspace_rootNoAbsolute path to the target repo root — pass it (or an MCP root) to target the intended repo; otherwise the call falls back to the server's own cwd and sets meta.workspace_warning.
idempotency_keyNoOptional dedup key scoped to THIS tool + workspace. Same key + same args replays the prior result with no new spend; different args are refused (idempotency_conflict). Sync and _async are separate tools and never share a key. Omit for none; retention is bounded. Lifecycle: codex://params.
reasoning_effortNoOverride the Codex reasoning effort for this call (a model_reasoning_effort 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 backend validates at run time — commonly minimal|low|medium|high|xhigh; codex_models lists each model's advertised set (advisory). Rejection and bounds detail: codex://params.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: it clearly states this is a PAID operation that spends Codex quota, explains the diff-gathering job has zero spend on bad base/commit, details data egress (sending redacted diff plus unredacted extra_context to OpenAI), and notes redaction is best-effort. This complements annotations like readOnlyHint=false (because it creates a job and spends quota) without contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence serves a purpose; it is front-loaded with the key purpose and cost warning, then logically organized into usage guidance, job lifecycle, and data-egress details. Despite the length, it is appropriately sized for a tool with this many caveats.

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, the description is comprehensive: it covers cost, scope semantics, error behavior, egress, job management, and configuration fallback. With an output schema present, it does not need to describe return values, and it fully instructs how to consume results via other tools.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable semantics: it explicitly instructs to pass workspace_root (absolute), reveals that bad base/commit yields zero spend, that bad scope is rejected by MCP validation, and flags that untracked files with the 'include' policy send contents to OpenAI. This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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's function: 'Review your git changes in the background; get a job_id back immediately.' It distinguishes itself from the synchronous sibling codex_review_changes by emphasizing the detached/background nature and immediate job_id return.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is provided: use codex_dry_run or codex_status first for free readiness checks, and prefer this async tool for multi-file or whole-branch reviews that may exceed the 300s sync deadline. It also explains the job lifecycle (poll, read, consume, cancel), making the intended usage clear.

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