Verified Handles

Restore an entry to an earlier revision

restore_entry_revision

Destructive

Put an entry back as it was at one of its revisions (get_entry_admin → history: a ref_id like "r123" with restorable: true; imported legacy revisions cannot be restored). It is a new revision, so it can itself be undone. Needs the right to edit the entry. To ask a reviewer instead, use propose_entry_revert. Audited. Dry run by default.

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).
`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.
`revision`	Yes	The revision’s ref_id, e.g. "r123".

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by explaining that the restore is itself a new revision and therefore undoable, that it requires edit rights, that it is audited, and that it defaults to a dry run. The 'imported legacy revisions cannot be restored' constraint is behavioral knowledge available nowhere else. No contradiction with the destructive hint — the write is real, just recoverable.

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 preconditions, alternative, and defaults. Dense and every clause carries information, though the parenthetical dependency chain plus the trailing short sentences make it a touch cluttered rather than maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description covers everything else an agent needs — permission, revision precondition, restorability limits, alternative tool, dry-run default, and undoability. Nothing material is missing for a 4-param destructive mutation.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: where the `revision` value comes from (get_entry_admin history), its accepted shape and the `restorable: true` gating flag, and the dry-run/undo semantics of the operation. That is real value over the schema 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+scope: 'Put an entry back as it was at one of its revisions.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling propose_entry_revert and from the read-only get_entry_admin/history it depends on, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the exact precondition chain (get_entry_admin → history, look for a ref_id with restorable: true), an explicit exclusion (imported legacy revisions cannot be restored), required permission (right to edit the entry), and a named alternative with its selecting condition ('To ask a reviewer instead, use propose_entry_revert').

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.