Verified Handles

Link an entry to a Wikidata item, or unlink it

set_entry_wikidata_item

Destructive

Point an entry at a different Wikidata item (a QID), or unlink it (qid: null) — the fix for a wrong link. The item decides what the sync writes onto the entry; adopt chooses which fields it may manage (left out: the server’s default on a first link, unchanged on a re-point). A revision, so it can be undone. Needs the right to edit the entry. Audited. Dry run by default. To ask a reviewer instead, use propose_entry_change.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`qid`	Yes
`adopt`	No	The fields the item may manage; the rest are taken back by the site.
`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.

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?

Annotations declare the mutation and destruction profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: dry run by default, requirement of edit rights on the entry, audit, and that the change is a revision and therefore undoable. It also explains how the item drives what the sync writes onto the entry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action and constraint before the fallback sibling. The em-dash-heavy phrasing packs a lot in, bordering on compressed, but every clause carries operational information.

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, and the description covers the remaining essentials for a destructive mutation: permissions, audit, undoability, dry-run default, and the reviewer alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the schema already documents the parameters, but the description adds real meaning: qid: null means unlink, and adopt's omission resolves differently on a first link (server default) versus a re-point (unchanged). That default-behavior nuance is not in the schema, though the individual field choices of adopt remain schema-only.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: point an entry at a different Wikidata item (a QID), or unlink it with qid: null. It distinguishes itself from siblings both by scope and by naming propose_entry_change as the reviewer alternative.

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?

It gives the scenario ("the fix for a wrong link") and names the alternative path to a reviewer (propose_entry_change), with the dry-run default signalling when a real change is committed. Nothing material is left 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.