Skip to main content
Glama

Review git changes (paid)

kimi_review_changes

Get an independent second opinion on git changes from another AI model, covering working tree, branch, or commit scopes, with structured findings.

Instructions

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

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

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; Kimi reviews it read-only and returns structured findings. Pass workspace_root (absolute) for the right repo. Optional extra_context (author intent, bounded like the diff) cuts false positives.

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.

STATIC review, not a verify mode: the read-only sandbox blocks the writes a test/build/lint run needs, so Kimi can't run the project's checks to confirm its findings — treat them as unvalidated claims you verify yourself before acting.

Data egress: this sends the gathered diff to your configured provider via the kimi CLI. The diff is secret-redacted (best-effort), but your extra_context is sent raw (unredacted), Kimi auto-loads the resolved workspace's AGENTS.md and discovers skills from its own config (including extra_skill_dirs, which may point outside the workspace). Skill names and descriptions are exposed to the model up front, so that content can be sent even if your prompt never mentions it. The isolation setting does not suppress any of it: kimi's built-in skills always load, and AGENTS.md is read regardless.

Your inputs are sent raw and unredacted. Secret redaction is best-effort and covers the gathered diff and Kimi's returned output — not what you type, and not the files Kimi reads for itself.

Progress & recovery: blocks up to the resolved deadline (timeout_seconds, clamped 10-600s; when omitted, the server-configured value, built-in default 300s). If that deadline expires the run is terminated and its partial output is not recoverable or resumable, so for a multi-file or whole-branch review that may exceed it, prefer kimi_review_changes_async (a background job, built-in default 1800s deadline; poll kimi_job_status). Coarse notifications/progress streams while it blocks when your client requests it; some MCP clients background a long call before the deadline, so timeout_seconds bounds the run, not necessarily the inline wait — either way the detached run (meta.job_id) is recoverable via kimi_job_listkimi_job_statuskimi_job_result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoBase git ref for scope='branch'; the review covers base...HEAD.
modelNoOverride the Kimi model slug for this call; defaults to the server/Kimi 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
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.
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: kimi://params.
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 Kimi reasoning effort for this call (a model_reasoning_effort override); omit or pass null for the server default (MOONBRIDGE_REASONING_EFFORT) or Kimi's own resolution. An open, per-model string the backend validates at run time — commonly minimal|low|medium|high|xhigh; kimi_models lists each model's advertised set (advisory). Rejection and bounds detail: kimi://params.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond this by disclosing paid quota consumption, best-effort secret redaction, raw/unredacted extra_context, AGENTS.md and skill auto-loading even when unmentioned, isolation not suppressing them, timeout termination with unrecoverable partial output, and the async recovery path. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but well-structured, front-loading the paid warning and purpose, then covering scope, sandbox limits, egress, and progress/recovery. Some redundancy exists ('Your inputs are sent raw and unredacted' appears alongside extra_context unredacted notes), but every sentence contributes to the necessary risk disclosure for a paid data-egress 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 13 parameters, an output schema, and a paid data-egress tool with an async sibling, the description is remarkably complete. It explains review_status/coverage semantics, timeout behavior, async fallback with job polling, sandbox read-only constraints, and security caveats. The existence of an output schema means return-value details need not be exhaustively listed, and they aren't.

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% with descriptive per-parameter text, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-cutting semantics: extra_context is unredacted and helps cut false positives, workspace_root fallback triggers a warning, timeout_seconds is clamped to 10-600, and idempotency_key is separate for sync vs async. These go beyond the schema's individual field 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Ask Kimi (a different model) to review your git changes for an independent second opinion.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming alternatives like kimi_dry_run, kimi_status, and kimi_review_changes_async, and by specifying the git-change review scope (working_tree, branch, commit).

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 states when to use free alternatives first ('use kimi_dry_run or kimi_status (both free) first if you only need to check scope or readiness'), when to prefer the async variant for long-running reviews, and when NOT to use this tool (static review cannot run tests/build/lint, so findings are unvalidated claims). It also explains data egress trade-offs and timeout behavior.

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