Skip to main content
Glama

Review git changes in background (paid)

kimi_review_changes_async

Start an asynchronous git review that returns a job ID immediately, allowing large or multi-file diffs to be reviewed without hitting synchronous timeout limits.

Instructions

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

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.

Same read-only behavior as kimi_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 kimi_job_status; read/consume the review envelope with kimi_job_result/kimi_job_consume_result; stop with kimi_job_cancel. Pass workspace_root (absolute).

Data egress: same as kimi_review_changes — sends the secret-redacted diff plus your raw (unredacted) extra_context to your configured provider via the kimi CLI; Kimi may also 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).

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.

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'.
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.
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 give hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden—and it does a thorough job: it discloses spend/quota, zero-spend on bad base/commit, best-effort secret redaction, raw egress of extra_context, auto-loading AGENTS.md, skill discovery, and the job deadline. 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 with bolded lead-ins and a clear summary up front. Every major section (paid, async behavior, deadline, egress, idempotency, skills) earns its place. It is dense but not bloated; a slight trim could improve scannability, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 (11 params, async lifecycle, paid spend, data egress, multiple sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, cost/risk, error modes, data handling, related tools, and parameter edge-cases, so an agent has all needed context to invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra behavioral meaning beyond the schema: `base`/`commit` errors yield zero spend, bad `scope` is rejected before job start, `workspace_root` should be absolute, and `idempotency_key` replays results with no new spend. This justifies one point above baseline.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource+mode: 'Review your git changes in the background; get a `job_id` back immediately.' It clearly distinguishes from the synchronous sibling `kimi_review_changes` and from other async tools by emphasizing background/detached execution and 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'prefer it for a multi-file or whole-branch review that can exceed the synchronous deadline' and why (sync deadline loss). It also names free alternatives (`kimi_dry_run`, `kimi_status`) and the full job lifecycle (`kimi_job_status`, `kimi_job_result`, `kimi_job_cancel`), plus a paid/spend warning.

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