Skip to main content
Glama

codex_review_changes_async

Start an asynchronous git changes review that runs in the background. Receive a job ID immediately and poll for the result when ready, perfect for long reviews.

Instructions

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

Same read-only behavior as codex_review_changes (the diff is gathered, secret- redacted, and bounded, then reviewed read-only), but it runs detached — use it when the review may run long. 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 an out-of-enum value rejected by MCP input validation before the job starts). Starting a job commits to spend. Poll with codex_job_status, read the review envelope with codex_job_result, delete it with codex_job_consume_result, or stop it 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. 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' (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
Behavior4/5

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: describes error handling (zero spend on bad base/commit), spend commitment on job start, data egress details including redaction and extra_context handling. Annotations provide openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description complements these well 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured with key information front-loaded (async, job_id). All sentences add value, but the description is relatively long; minor room for tighter wording.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, async behavior, error handling, spend commitment, data egress, and relationship to other tools (polling, result consumption). Given the complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is complete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description only mentions workspace_root, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool reviews git changes in the background and returns a job_id. It distinguishes from its sibling codex_review_changes by emphasizing the asynchronous nature and long-running use case.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('use it when the review may run long') and contrasts with the synchronous alternative. Also mentions related tools for polling and result handling, providing clear guidance on context.

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