Skip to main content
Glama

Review git changes (paid)

kimi_review_changes

Review git changes with Kimi for an independent second opinion. Supports working tree, branch, and commit diffs, returning structured findings with coverage disclosure.

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 agent profile gives Kimi no shell and no write tool, so it cannot 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
isolationNoWhich skills Kimi loads: 'inherit' (own user/project discovery) or 'ignore-skills' (empty dir). Built-ins load either way; this reduces loading, not isolation. Default: server-configured, per kimi_status. More: kimi://params.
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 to target the intended repo (MCP roots are unavailable); 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
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations only giving readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true/idempotentHint=false/destructiveHint=false (no safety assertions), the description discloses extensively: it spends Kimi quota, sends the diff to the provider, secret-redaction is best-effort and does NOT cover extra_context or user inputs, AGENTS.md and skills are auto-loaded regardless of isolation, results can be lost on timeout (not recoverable/resumable), and review_status/coverage disclose partial/not_run states. It even explains that skill names/descriptions are exposed to the model before the prompt. This significantly enriches beyond annotations and surfaces the risk profile clearly. No 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?

The description is long but every paragraph earns its place: pricing/quota, scope, egress/privacy, progress/recovery, and limitations are all substantive and non-redundant. It is structured with bold labels (scope, Data egress, Progress & recovery) and front-loaded with the most decision-critical facts (PAID, free alternatives). It loses one point because the volume of detail, while valuable, is dense enough that a quick-skimming agent might miss the egress warnings embedded in the middle; a brief upfront risk summary would improve scanability.

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, 0 required, an output schema, and a rich sibling set, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers cost, egress/privacy, timeout behavior, async alternatives, dedup semantics, result disclosure semantics (review_status/coverage, not_run), and the read-only/static limitation. The only minor gap is not describing the output schema's structure, but the presence of an output schema plus the description's statements about top-level review_status/coverage makes that unnecessary. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select or invoke this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds substantial compensating value on top: it explains scope semantics (working_tree vs branch vs commit), untracked policy behavior, timeout clamping (10-600s), idempotency_key replay/refusal rules, and that workspace_root avoids fallback to server cwd. It also flags that extra_context is sent raw/unredacted and that isolation does not suppress built-in skills/AGENTS.md. This goes well beyond what the schema's individual parameter descriptions provide.

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 states a specific verb ('Review git changes') and resource ('git changes'), and immediately contrasts it with siblings: 'PAID — this spends Kimi quota on every new call; use kimi_dry_run or kimi_status...'. It distinguishes from kimi_review_changes_async (prefer for long runs), kimi_consult/kimi_delegate (different Kimi interactions), and explains what it actually does (gathers diff, secret-redacts, bounded, read-only review). This makes the tool's purpose and scope 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?

The description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'use kimi_dry_run or kimi_status (both free) first if you only need to check scope or readiness', 'prefer kimi_review_changes_async ... for a multi-file or whole-branch review that may exceed it', and describes the recovery path via kimi_job_list→kimi_job_status→kimi_job_result. It also explains scope selection semantics, workspace_root necessity, and extra_context usage. This is comprehensive routing guidance with exclusions (e.g., 'STATIC review, not a verify mode: ... cannot run the project's checks').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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