Verified Handles

Merge an entry into another

merge_entry

Destructive

Merge a duplicate entry into the one to keep (list_duplicate_qids suggests which): the kept entry gains the handles it lacks, and the merged one comes off the site and redirects there for good. Open proposals, claims and reports on the merged entry must be decided first. Needs the right to edit both. Undo with unmerge_entry. Audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to the VHID of the entry being merged away. To ask for it instead, use report_entry.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`into`	Yes	The entry to keep.
`entry`	Yes	The entry to merge away.
`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.
`summary`	No	Why you made this edit, in a few plain words; shown in the entry’s public history. At most 200 characters. Never an internal tracking ID (a backlog or ticket number); a VHID is fine.

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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive/not-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the kept entry inherits handles, the merged entry leaves the site and redirects permanently, edits are audited, permission to edit both entries is required, and dry_run defaults to true with the real run gated on confirm. This is exactly what an agent needs before a destructive merge.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: merge semantics first, then preconditions, permissions, undo, and finally the dry-run/confirm gate. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact with 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, non-idempotent tool the description covers preconditions, auth requirements, audit behavior, reversibility, and the two-phase dry-run/confirm flow. With an output schema present, there is no need to explain return values, so nothing material 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: confirm must be 'the VHID of the entry being merged away' and dry_run is default-true, clarifying the otherwise circular schema wording ('as the dry run gives it in confirm'). It does not restate entry/into beyond the schema's own text.

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 precise verb+resource with directionality baked in: 'Merge a duplicate entry into the one to keep.' The agent immediately knows which entry survives and which is removed, and it is clearly distinct from unmerge_entry and report_entry named in the same text.

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?

Explicitly routes between alternatives: list_duplicate_qids to find candidates, unmerge_entry to undo, report_entry to merely ask. It also gives a hard precondition ('Open proposals, claims and reports on the merged entry must be decided first'), so the agent knows when the call will be rejected.

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.