Verified Handles

Revoke a claim

revoke_claim

Destructive

Revoke the claim on an entry (Console → Policy): the account that claimed it no longer holds it, so the entry is edited and synced like any other again. Whether it is protected from the Wikidata sync is left as it is (set_entry_setting). A revision, and audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to the entry’s VHID.

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).
`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.

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: a revision is produced, the action is audited, the Wikidata-sync protection flag is explicitly left unchanged, and the dry-run/confirm safety workflow is spelled out. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core effect front-loaded, followed by scope limits and the safety workflow. The parenthetical pointers add navigation value rather than filler, though the confirm/VHID phrasing is slightly compressed and ambiguous.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: mutation semantics, auditability, unchanged settings, and the two-step dry-run/confirm flow. The only residual gap is the minor inconsistency in how confirm's value is described relative to the dry-run output.

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 entry, confirm and dry_run are already documented, and the description appropriately reinforces the dry-run default. However, it says confirm must be 'set to the entry's VHID' while the schema says confirm is the exact target as returned by the dry run—a subtle mismatch that could mislead rather than clarify.

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 ('Revoke the claim on an entry') and immediately clarifies the effect: the claiming account no longer holds it and the entry returns to normal editing/sync behavior. It also routes adjacent concerns to set_entry_setting, so an agent can separate this from the many other entry-mutating siblings.

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?

Gives clear operational context: dry run is the default and a real run requires confirm, plus an explicit pointer to set_entry_setting for the Wikidata-sync protection decision it deliberately does not touch. It stops short of stating when revocation is inappropriate (e.g. versus revert or propose_entry_revert), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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.