Verified Handles

Change a setting on many entries

bulk_change_entries

Destructive

Set one setting to one value on up to 500 entries at once, named by VHID, as the Entry manager’s Bulk action does: deleted (blocked: true, with an optional reason — a merged entry stays deleted), protected, verified, follow this entry’s handle links (follow_links), history hidden (needs the Hide history permission), kept off Trending, spotlight, who may edit live (edit_policy — "admin" needs the Edit locked entries permission) or propose. An entry already so is left alone. One audit row for the whole change, which revert_bulk_change undoes. The dry run reads each entry and lists what would change. The real run needs confirm set to the target the dry run names.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes
`vhids`	Yes
`reason`	No	A delete’s reason (blocked: true only) or a Verified change’s message (either way), kept in the audit log.
`confirm`	No	Needed with dry_run: false: this change’s exact target, as the dry run gives it in `confirm`.
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`setting`	Yes

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.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / reason / description

Previous value: -"A delete’s reason (blocked: true only), kept in the audit log."New value: +"A delete’s reason (blocked: true only) or a Verified change’s message (either way), kept in the audit log."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / setting / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "blocked",
-  "edit_policy",
-  "propose_policy",
-  "protected",
-  "history_hidden",
-  "trending_hidden",
-  "verified",
-  "follow_links",
-  "spotlight"
-]New value: +[
+  "blocked",
+  "edit_policy",
+  "propose_policy",
+  "protected",
+  "history_hidden",
+  "trending_hidden",
+  "verified",
+  "follow_links",
+  "spotlight",
+  "handles_shown"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / value / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "maximum": 1000000,
-    "minimum": 0,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "maxLength": 20,
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "maximum": 1000000,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxLength": 20,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / setting / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "blocked",
-  "edit_policy",
-  "propose_policy",
-  "protected",
-  "history_hidden",
-  "trending_hidden",
-  "verified",
-  "spotlight"
-]New value: +[
+  "blocked",
+  "edit_policy",
+  "propose_policy",
+  "protected",
+  "history_hidden",
+  "trending_hidden",
+  "verified",
+  "follow_links",
+  "spotlight"
+]

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description adds substantial context: one audit row for the whole change, revertability via revert_bulk_change, dry-run behavior, permission requirements, merged-entry deletion behavior, and that entries already in the target state are left alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded and almost every clause carries necessary information about settings, audit behavior, or confirmation. It is dense and could be easier to scan if split, but there is little actual waste.

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 complex bulk mutation tool, the description covers selection scope, dry-run safety, confirmation, permissions, audit/revert behavior, and most setting semantics. With annotations and an output schema also present, no major agent-facing gap remains.

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 50%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it maps most `setting` values to behavior and explains `dry_run`, `confirm`, and `reason` semantics. However, `handles_shown` is not mentioned and the value-type mapping across settings remains only partially clarified.

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 precise verb and resource: set one setting to one value on up to 500 entries identified by VHID. The scope and bulk nature clearly distinguish it from single-entry siblings such as set_entry_setting.

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?

It explains the dry-run-first workflow, that the real run requires `confirm` from the dry run, and that revert_bulk_change undoes the whole change. It also notes permission constraints for specific settings, though it does not explicitly name single-entry alternatives like set_entry_setting.

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.