Verified Handles

Link entries to an article

link_article_entries

DestructiveIdempotent

Set the entries an article is about and those it mentions (their pages list it under “In the news” once it is live), as a save does. By default the entries given are added (one already linked takes the role given) and those in remove taken off; with replace: true the two lists given are the whole of it. Audited with the key and the tool. Dry run by default: it shows the links before and after.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`about`	No	Entries the article is about (VHID, short name or QID).
`remove`	No	Entries to take off it.
`article`	Yes	The article: its id (list_articles), its address ("/news/<slug>", "/guides/<slug>" or the full URL), or its slug alone.
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`replace`	No	true: `about` and `mentions` are the whole list, and every other entry is taken off.
`summary`	No	Why, in a few plain words, kept with the revision in the article’s history. Never an internal tracking ID.
`mentions`	No	Entries it names in passing.

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 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only), the description adds real context: links surface on entry pages under "In the news" once live, changes are audited with the key and tool, and the call is a dry run by default showing before and after. That is meaningful disclosure of side effects, though the mechanism of the dry-run preview output is only sketched.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default semantics before the dry-run note. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical clauses make it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover behavior, and it does: defaults, replace semantics, audit, and the dry-run preview. Only minor edge cases (e.g., an entry appearing in both `about` and `mentions`) go unaddressed.

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 earns above that by explaining cross-parameter behavior — how `about`/`mentions` combine with `remove`, and what `replace` overrides — which the per-field schema text does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: setting the entries an article is about and mentions. That scope makes it distinguishable from siblings such as update_entries or set_article_hero, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives clear operating context: the default is additive with a `remove` list, and `replace: true` makes the given lists the whole truth. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools like update_entries.

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.