Verified Handles

Propose changes to many entries

propose_entry_changes

Idempotent

Proposals for up to 25 entries in one request, each as propose_entry_change files one (the text fields, handles added and removed) for a reviewer to decide; nothing changes until a person approves each. Audited, with one batch id. Proposing the same change again while it waits answers the same proposal. By default each proposal stands alone; with atomic: true, any refused one means none is filed. Dry run by default: it reads each entry and lists what would be proposed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`edits`	Yes	The proposals, each to a different entry.
`atomic`	No	true: all or nothing — if any edit is refused, none is made (the route answers 422 naming each refused edit). false (the default): each edit on its own.
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional: a key you choose (1–255 printable ASCII, e.g. a UUID), sent as the write’s Idempotency-Key. Calling again with the same key and the same change within 24 hours answers the first call’s result (replayed: true) and writes nothing; the same key with another change is refused (422).

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that nothing changes until a person approves each proposal, that changes are audited under one batch id, that re-proposing an identical pending change answers the same proposal, the atomic all-or-nothing behavior, and that it is dry-run by default. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs and are not captured by the hint flags.

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-loads the core purpose ('Proposals for up to 25 entries in one request') and each following clause carries distinct information (approval gate, batch id, idempotency, atomic, dry run). The opening sentence is long and dense, but there is little redundancy overall.

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 batch, multi-parameter mutation tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: the approval gate, per-entry vs atomic semantics, dry-run default, and idempotency. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema itself documents entry, short, handles, base_revision_id, atomic, dry_run, and idempotency_key in detail. The description restates the atomic and dry-run semantics but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 with scope ('Proposals for up to 25 entries in one request') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling by noting 'each as propose_entry_change files one.' An agent can immediately tell this is the bulk variant of propose_entry_change.

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?

Clearly frames the batch use case (up to 25 entries in one request) and names the singular alternative by reference, giving strong context for when to pick this tool. However, it never states an explicit 'use this instead when X' or an exclusion, leaving the routing to inference.

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.