Skip to main content
Glama

Preview a review (free)

kimi_dry_run
Read-only

Preview a code review before you pay: see scope, diff size, redactions, and truncation without calling a model. Use it to check what a review would send.

Instructions

Preview what a kimi_review_changes call would send — scope, diff size, redactions, truncation. Free — no model call, no spend. Use it before a review to inspect the scope and the reported redactions; redaction is best-effort, so treat the preview as a check on scope, not as confirmation that no secret remains. Pass the same extra_context and untracked policy you would give the review so the preview matches it. would_call_model reports whether the paid call would actually run the model (False on an empty diff, where prompt_bytes is 0), and coverage discloses omitted untracked files just as the review would. The result echoes the effective model/reasoning_effort overrides the paid call would send (unvalidated). deadline_advisory is non-null when size or effort risks the synchronous deadline (null whenever would_call_model is False) and names kimi_review_changes_async verbatim — the async counterpart of the previewed call, not of this dry-run tool. A hint, not a refusal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoBase git ref for scope='branch'; the review covers base...HEAD.
modelNoThe Kimi model slug the previewed paid call would use; defaults to the server default (MOONBRIDGE_MODEL) when unset, so the preview mirrors the paid call's resolution. This dry run does not call Kimi or validate the model.
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'.
isolationNoKimi skills isolation: which skills Kimi loads — 'inherit' (its own user/project discovery) or 'ignore-skills' (replace those with an empty directory). Kimi's built-in skills load either way. Defaults to the server's configured value (built-in 'inherit'; `kimi_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 your configured provider — 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: kimi://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.
reasoning_effortNoThe reasoning effort the previewed paid call would send (as a `model_reasoning_effort` config override); defaults to the server default (MOONBRIDGE_REASONING_EFFORT) when unset, so the preview mirrors the paid call's resolution. This dry run does not call Kimi or validate the value beyond the paid params' shape bounds (no control or surrogate characters, ≤128 chars).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: 'Free — no model call, no spend', 'redaction is best-effort... not as confirmation that no secret remains', and details on would_call_model, coverage, and deadline_advisory. It clearly states the preview is unvalidated and 'A hint, not a refusal', giving the agent a rich understanding of limitations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then systematically covers caveats and behavioral details. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler or redundancy. Despite its length, the density of valuable information justifies the size for a complex preview tool.

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 (10 parameters, output schema, sibling relationships), the description covers usage, safety caveats, field behavior (would_call_model, coverage, deadline_advisory), and the relationship to both the paid review and its async variant. It is complete without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by instructing to pass the same extra_context and untracked policy as the review, and by explaining that model/reasoning_effort overrides are echoed 'unvalidated'. These cross-tool usage notes add value beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 is a free preview of what kimi_review_changes would send, with specific scope: 'scope, diff size, redactions, truncation'. It distinguishes itself from the actual review tool and its async counterpart, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 given: 'Use it before a review to inspect the scope' and 'Pass the same extra_context and untracked policy you would give the review so the preview matches it'. It also clarifies the async relationship: 'names kimi_review_changes_async verbatim — the async counterpart of the previewed call, not of this dry-run tool', preventing misuse.

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/moonbridge'

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