Verified Handles

Edit many entries live

update_entries

Destructive

Live edits to up to 25 entries in one request, each as update_entry_fields and update_entry_handles make one (the text fields, handles added and removed): a new revision each, audited with one batch id. Whether this key may edit each entry live is decided entry by entry, as for one edit (the dry run’s may_edit_live). By default each edit stands alone and the answer gives each one’s outcome; with atomic: true, any refused edit means none is made. Dry run by default: it reads each entry and lists what would change. The real run needs confirm set to the batch digest the dry run names. To ask a reviewer instead, use propose_entry_changes.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`edits`	Yes	The edits, each to a different entry.
`atomic`	No	true: all or nothing — if any edit is refused, none is made (the route answers 422 naming each refused edit). false (the default): each edit on its own.
`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 these edits, in a few plain words: each edit’s summary unless it gives its own. Shown in each entry’s public history. Never an internal tracking ID; a VHID is fine.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional: a key you choose (1–255 printable ASCII, e.g. a UUID), sent as the write’s Idempotency-Key. Calling again with the same key and the same change within 24 hours answers the first call’s result (replayed: true) and writes nothing; the same key with another change is refused (422).

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: a new revision per entry with one batch id for audit, per-entry may_edit_live authorization, dry-run-by-default, and the digest-confirm gate for real writes. It does not describe response shape, but an output schema exists.

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-loads the core action and scope in the first clause, then layers on atomicity, dry run, and the alternative. The parenthetical 'each as update_entry_fields and update_entry_handles make one (the text fields, handles added and removed)' is slightly convoluted but earns its place by anchoring the sibling relationship.

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?

For a destructive, 6-parameter batch mutation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: scope limit, per-entry vs atomic semantics, dry-run-first protocol, confirm token, authorization model, and the human-review alternative. Return values are properly left to the output schema.

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 workflow meaning the schema alone doesn't convey: confirm is 'the batch digest the dry run names' and atomic governs whether 'any refused edit means none is made.' That ties the discrete parameters into a coherent two-phase protocol.

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 with scope: 'Live edits to up to 25 entries in one request.' It explicitly maps itself onto the single-entry siblings update_entry_fields and update_entry_handles ('each as ... make one'), so an agent can distinguish batch from single-edit tools without opening a 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 explicit routing: use propose_entry_changes to ask a reviewer instead, and use this tool for direct live edits. It also states the operational preconditions — dry run is the default, the real run requires confirm set to the dry run's batch digest, and atomic: true changes failure semantics to all-or-nothing.

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.