Verified Handles

Undo a bulk change

revert_bulk_change

Destructive

Undo a bulk change (list_bulk_changes): each entry it changed goes back to its value before, unless it is already there — or, for a delete, it has been merged since. The revert is itself a bulk change, so it can be undone the same way. Audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to the bulk change’s id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Why, for an undo of a Verified change, kept in the audit log; an undo of any other setting keeps none.
`bulk_id`	Yes	The bulk change’s id (list_bulk_changes).
`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.

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.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why, for an undo of a Verified change, kept in the audit log; an undo of any other setting keeps none.",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "type": "string"
+}

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: it discloses skip conditions (already at prior value; deleted entries that were merged since), that the revert is itself a bulk change and therefore recursively undoable, that it is audited, and that it is dry-run by default. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before touching a destructive operation.

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?

Three dense sentences, no filler. Safety-critical facts (skip conditions, reversibility of the revert) come before the operational detail (audited, dry run, confirm), which is the right ordering.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation semantics thoroughly. Minor gaps: no statement of permissions/auth requirements or of what happens on partial failure, and the confirm-value ambiguity noted above.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds the dry-run default and the confirm gate. However, it says confirm is 'set to the bulk change’s id' while the schema says confirm is 'this change’s exact target, as the dry run gives it in `confirm`' — a discrepancy that could cause a failed or wrong call.

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 ('Undo a bulk change') and immediately ties it to the lookup sibling (list_bulk_changes), so an agent knows how to obtain the required id. The per-entry semantics (restore prior value, skip if already there, skip deletes already merged) make it unmistakable against siblings like propose_entry_revert or bulk_change_entries.

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?

Explicit invocation protocol: dry run is the default and the real run requires confirm. It also routes id discovery to list_bulk_changes. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over propose_entry_revert (proposal vs. direct undo), so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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.