Skip to main content
Glama
devemberx

Polarion MCP

by devemberx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Polarion MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • TestRail MCP Server

      uarlouski
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      AI-native Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for TestRail. Lets Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and other AI assistants browse projects, create and update test cases, kick off test runs, and record results through natural-language conversation — with strongly-typed tool schemas and per-project custom field validation that helps LLMs generate valid TestRail requests on the first try.
      28
      1,548 npm
      37
      Apache 2.0

    • Vane MCP Server

      myou260312-eng
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A production-ready Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that extends GitHub Copilot with GitHub repository management capabilities. Enables AI-driven issue tracking, repository information retrieval, and seamless GitHub integration.
      1
      MIT

    • @abdelrahmanhsn/jira-mcp

      abdelrahman-hsn
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that connects your AI IDE to Jira. Query your tickets, active sprint, and issue details directly from GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude Desktop, or any MCP-compatible client.
      24 npm
      ISC
    Deploy Server
    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

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 46 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are grouped by domain (document, work item, test record) with clear prefixes, and read vs. get vs. list are generally distinct (rendered Markdown vs. raw metadata vs. paginated listing). Some potential confusion exists between get_document/read_document and get_work_item/read_work_item, but descriptions clarify the difference.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, create_, update_) with domain prefixes (document_, work_item_, test_record_). Minor inconsistencies include singular 'comment' in update_document_comment/update_work_item_comment versus plural in list/create, and the use of 'read_' for rendering tools alongside 'get_' for metadata.

    Tool Count2/5

    At 46 tools, the surface is very large, exceeding the 25+ threshold for a heavy set. While the domain complexity justifies many operations, the count borders on overwhelming, and some tools (e.g., separate attachment/comment tools for each entity type) could potentially be consolidated.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set covers create, read, update, and list for most entities, but delete operations are largely absent: no delete_document, delete_work_item, delete_comment, or delete_attachment. The attachment descriptions explicitly state deletion is unsupported, which is a significant gap for workflows that require removing erroneous uploads.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessResponsive

    Resources