Verified Handles

Approve an application

approve_application

Destructive

Approve an open application: the entry is created live from its proposal, your assessment (as it stands, with any field given here changed) is recorded with it, and the applicant is emailed. The dry run warns when the assessment falls short of the policy or an entry already links its Wikidata item. Never your own application unless you could create that entry directly. Audited. Dry run by default.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`wikipedia`	No	An English Wikipedia article about the subject, undisputed and at least 10 days old, confirmed — eligible on its own.
`registered`	No	Registrations confirmed (20 points each).
`press_points`	No	Press coverage, 0–50 points.
`impersonation`	No	A significant risk of impersonation, in your judgement — eligible on its own.
`application_id`	Yes	The application’s id (list_applications).
`associated_entry`	No	An associated eligible entry confirmed (100 points).
`verified_accounts`	No	Verified TikTok/Snapchat accounts confirmed (50 points each).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
`result`	No	A real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
`confirm`	No	A dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
`dry_run`	No	true: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
`replayed`	No	A real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
`would_send`	No	A dry run: the exact request the real run would send (`method`, `path`, any `headers` such as an Idempotency-Key, and its `body`, `form` or `query`), or the requests, in order.
`may_edit_live`	No	A dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
`refused_because`	No	A dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent and mutating, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that a live entry is created, the applicant is emailed, the assessment is overwritten with the given fields, the action is audited, and the dry run surfaces policy shortfalls and Wikidata-item conflicts.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effects, and every sentence carries information — side effects, warning behavior, the self-approval restriction, auditability, default mode. It is dense and slightly packed but has no filler.

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 a destructive, multi-effect approval tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers side effects, preconditions, the self-approval restriction, and the safe default. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top, explaining that dry_run defaults to true and only warns, and that assessment fields are applied as changes to the current assessment rather than supplied wholesale.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (approve an application) and enumerates the concrete consequences: the entry goes live from its proposal, the assessment is recorded alongside it, and the applicant is emailed. This clearly separates it from siblings like reject_application or assess_application without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit exclusion — never approve your own application unless you could create that entry directly — plus the default dry-run posture and the conditions the dry run warns about. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the when/when-not conditions are clear.

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

All Verified Handles tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.