Skip to main content
Glama

Review git changes in background (paid)

kimi_review_changes_async

Start a background git diff review that returns a job_id right away—ideal for large or branch-wide changes that exceed sync timeouts.

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'.
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.
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses spend, zero-spend error cases, the 1800s job deadline, best-effort secret redaction, egress of raw extra_context, AGENTS.md auto-loading, and skill discovery. The 'read-only behavior' clause is consistent with readOnlyHint=false because the tool creates a job and spends quota; the description clarifies that the review itself does not modify the code.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core async behavior, cost, and free alternatives. It is somewhat long and contains a broken sentence ('Kimi may also' followed by 'Kimi auto-loads'), plus minor redundancy around spend, but nearly every sentence carries material guidance.

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?

For an 11-parameter paid async tool, the description covers the full job lifecycle, cost model, failure modes, data-egress boundaries, timeouts, and relationships to all relevant sibling tools. Output shape is delegated to the existing output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds useful runtime semantics: bad base/commit yields a structured error with zero spend, bad scope is rejected before the job starts, workspace_root should be passed, and inputs are sent raw/unredacted.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Review your git changes in the background') and immediate result ('get a job_id back'), and the title/description mark it as the paid async variant. It explicitly distinguishes itself from kimi_review_changes by the detached execution model and from kimi_dry_run/kimi_status by cost and purpose.

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 gives clear selection criteria: use kimi_dry_run or kimi_status first for free scope/readiness checks, prefer this tool for multi-file or whole-branch reviews likely to exceed the 300s sync deadline, and use the listed kimi_job_* siblings to poll, read, consume, or cancel. It also warns that starting a job commits spend.

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