Skip to main content
Glama

Add or remove handles

update_entry_handles
Destructive

Add handles to an entry or remove them — a live edit. Only the handles named are sent (add_handles / remove_handles), and the server applies them to the entry’s list as it is when it saves: an added handle goes at the end, one the entry has already, or one to remove that it has not, changes nothing (the answer’s handle_ops says which), and nothing is read first, so a handle someone else saved meanwhile is never undone. A handle you remove that the Wikidata sync supplied is held back so the sync does not bring it back. Dry run by default. To ask a reviewer instead, use propose_entry_change.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addNo
entryYesThe entry: its VHID (11 digits), its short name (as in verifiedhandles.org/<short>), or its Wikidata QID (Q42).
removeNoHandles to take off, each by its value — or, for an email this key may not see, by {platform_id: "email", ref}.
dry_runNotrue (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
summaryNoWhy 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.
idempotency_keyNoOptional: 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).
base_revision_idNoNot needed, and not sent: handles are added and removed against the entry as it is when the edit is saved.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoA dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
resultNoA real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
confirmNoA dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
dry_runNotrue: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
replayedNoA real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
would_sendNoA 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_liveNoA dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
refused_becauseNoA dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true): it explains the no-read merge semantics ('nothing is read first, so a handle someone else saved meanwhile is never undone'), what a no-op add/remove does, that removed Wikidata-synced handles are held back from re-sync, and that dry run is default. This is exactly the concurrency and side-effect 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries substance, but the middle portion is a dense run-on with stacked em-dash clauses that takes effort to parse. Slightly tighter phrasing would preserve the same information with less friction.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the full behavioral surface an agent needs: dry-run default, no-read merge guarantees, Wikidata-sync hold-back, and the reviewer alternative. Nothing material is left unstated for a tool of this complexity.

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 already 86%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by naming the write fields (add_handles / remove_handles), explaining that only named handles are sent, and pointing to the response's handle_ops field. It stops short of detailing the entry identifier forms, which the schema already covers.

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+resource ('Add handles to an entry or remove them') and immediately frames it as 'a live edit', which distinguishes it from the sibling propose_entry_change. An agent can identify the action and its direct-edit nature 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'To ask a reviewer instead, use propose_entry_change.' It also flags that dry_run is the default, telling the agent both when to reach for this tool and how its default behavior sits relative to making a real change.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.