Verified Handles

Undo a merge

unmerge_entry

Destructive

Undo an entry’s merge: it is its own entry on the site again, and the handles the merge added come off the entry it was merged into (refused, naming them, if they have changed since). Name it by its VHID. Audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to that VHID.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entry`	Yes	The merged entry, by its VHID.
`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.
`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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, not read-only), and the description adds substantially on top: what state changes, that added handles are removed from the merged-into entry, the refusal condition, that the action is audited, and the dry-run/confirm two-step. That is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Extremely dense with zero filler: each clause adds a distinct fact (post-state, handle removal, refusal, identifier, audit, default mode, confirm requirement) and the core action is front-loaded in the first phrase.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it correctly ties confirm to what the dry run returns. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this mutation safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the description still adds the workflow meaning of confirm ('set to that VHID' for the real run) and reinforces that entry is named by VHID. Minor tension: the description says confirm is the VHID while the schema says it is the exact target token the dry run returns.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (undo a merge) and states the resulting state ('its own entry on the site again'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling merge_entry. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 operating conditions: dry run by default, real run requires confirm, and the call is refused if the merged-into entry's handles changed. It never explicitly says 'use merge_entry to do the forward operation' or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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.