Skip to main content
Glama

Propose a new entry

propose_new_entry
Idempotent

Propose a new entry for a reviewer to decide: it waits in Console → Applications under Quick proposals (list_applications with tab "proposals") and becomes live when approved. Refused (not_accepting) while Settings pauses new-entry requests, unless this account may create entries itself. For someone or something with no Wikidata item, leave out qid. With qid, the entry is linked to that item, and after approval Wikidata keeps up to date whatever you did not write (and any field in let_wikidata_manage). Refused, naming the entry, when one is already on the item. A merged-away QID is refused (409 qid_merged), naming the item Wikidata kept in wikidata_item: propose on that one. Sending the same proposal again within 15 minutes answers with the first one. note tells the reviewer why. Audited. Dry run by default: it names the entries already on the item, a short name already taken or held by a site redirect (short_is_redirect), and handles already on another entry. Related entries link themselves: when it is approved, this entry and the other new entries this account proposed within a day link each other both ways on the first plain-text mention of each title, so write names as plain text and file no follow-up to add links; the dry run lists them (related_entries, links_on_approval).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qidNoThe Wikidata item, e.g. "Q42". Leave it out for an entry with no item.
noteNoWhy you propose this, in plain words: posted as the proposal’s first comment, which the reviewer reads with it. At most 2,000 characters. Never an internal tracking ID (a backlog or ticket number); a VHID is fine.
shortNoThe short name, as in verifiedhandles.org/<short>. Whether it is free is checked when the proposal is approved.
titleYes
dry_runNotrue (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
handlesNo
subtitleNo
descriptionNoHTML; it is sanitised when stored.
idempotency_keyNoOptional: 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).
let_wikidata_manageNoWith qid: fields you give that Wikidata should keep up to date after approval, as the console form does for a title it prefilled and you left as it was.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoA dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
resultNoA real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
confirmNoA dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
dry_runNotrue: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
replayedNoA real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
would_sendNoA 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_liveNoA dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
refused_becauseNoA dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: pause-state refusal (not_accepting), duplicate-on-item refusal, 409 qid_merged with the surviving QID in wikidata_item, 15-minute duplicate-suppression returning the first result, auditing, and dry-run-by-default behavior. It also discloses the non-obvious side effect that related entries auto-cross-link on approval, which no annotation conveys.

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-loaded with the core action, then refusal conditions, then dry-run semantics — a sensible ordering for a dense single paragraph. It is on the long side and sentences such as the related-entries linking clause require re-reading, but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter mutation with conditional refusals, this covers preconditions, failure modes, idempotency/dedup windows, dry-run preview contents, and post-approval side effects. Return-value description is unnecessary because an output schema exists.

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 70%, so the schema carries most of the weight, but the description adds genuine meaning: what `note` is for (reviewer-facing rationale), the semantic effect of omitting `qid`, how `let_wikidata_manage` interacts with qid, and the instruction to write titles as plain text because of auto-linking. Parameters like `subtitle`, `description`, and `handles` get no description-level elaboration, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first clause names the exact action and its destination: a proposal queued for a reviewer, visible in Console → Applications under Quick proposals, going live on approval. That is a specific verb+resource plus lifecycle, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like create_entry_from_qid or propose_from_wikidata, which are not described as reviewer-queued proposals.

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 explicit selection criteria for the qid parameter (omit for entities with no Wikidata item; include to link) and explains the account-permission condition ('unless this account may create entries itself'). What it lacks is a direct naming of the sibling alternative an agent should pick instead when it does have a Wikidata item and wants an import path, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.