Verified Handles

Delete an entry

delete_entry

Destructive

Delete an entry: it comes off the public site and joins Console → Deleted entries, with your reason (kept private). Its page and its links answer 404, as if it never existed, unless notice gives it a public removal notice: its address then answers 410 “This entry was removed” with the date and that notice’s fixed line (wikidata_deleted: its Wikidata item was deleted; not_eligible; duplicate; terms: removed under the terms of use), and its name unless hide_title. Leave notice out for a removal at the subject’s request. set_delete_notice changes it later. Nothing is erased, and restore_deleted_entry brings it back (and clears the notice). Audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to the entry’s VHID. To ask for it instead, use report_entry.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entry`	Yes	The entry: its VHID (11 digits), its short name (as in verifiedhandles.org/<short>), or its Wikidata QID (Q42).
`notice`	No	A public removal notice (410) instead of the 404; none when left out.
`reason`	No	Why — the Deleted entries list shows it. Never shown publicly.
`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.
`hide_title`	No	With notice: leave the entry’s name off it.

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / hide_title

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "With notice: leave the entry’s name off it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / notice

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A public removal notice (410) instead of the 404; none when left out.",
+  "enum": [
+    "wikidata_deleted",
+    "not_eligible",
+    "duplicate",
+    "terms"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / reason / description

Previous value: -"Why — the Deleted entries list shows it."New value: +"Why — the Deleted entries list shows it. Never shown publicly."

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive/not idempotent; the description adds what an agent actually needs: the entry leaves the public site but is not erased, reason is private while listed in Console, page and links 404 unless a notice is supplied (then 410 with a fixed line and date), audited, and dry-run-by-default requiring confirm set to the VHID. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Lead clause states the action and the public/console consequence first, then the notice behaviour, then dry-run/confirm and the sibling alternative. Dense and long, but nearly every clause carries operational information; the notice enumeration could be trimmed since the enum itself lists the values.

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, non-idempotent mutation with confirm-gated dry-run, the description covers irreversibility (only soft), restoration path, audit trail, public-visibility effects and the 404/410 distinction. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing essential 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 baseline is 3; the description adds public-effect semantics the schema lacks — the 410 status and per-enum fixed line, hide_title suppressing the name on the notice, and reason being private but listed. Minor friction: it says confirm must be the entry's VHID while the schema says 'this change's exact target, as the dry run gives it'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete an entry') and immediately distinguishes it from look-alikes by naming restore_deleted_entry, set_delete_notice and report_entry. An agent can separate this from delete_wikidata_deleted_entry / delete_renamed_short without opening a schema, since the entry-address and 404/410 consequences are stated.

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 real routing guidance: 'leave notice out for a removal at the subject's request', 'to ask for it instead, use report_entry', and set_delete_notice for later changes. It stops short of covering the neighbouring deletion variants (delete_wikidata_deleted_entry, delete_renamed_short) or when deletion should be refused in favour of a merge.

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.