Skip to main content
Glama

create_work_item_attachments

Upload one to ten local files as attachments to a single Polarion work item in one request, with duplicate filename support and a 25 MiB size cap.

Instructions

Upload 1-10 local files as work item attachments in one request.

For document attachments use create_document_attachments instead. file_path is read from local disk by the server process -- use absolute paths to readable files. Total upload size per call is capped at 25 MiB: compress or use the Polarion portal for one oversized file, split oversized batches across calls. attachment_ids in the result are server-assigned counter-prefixed ids (e.g. 3-diagram.png) -- not predictable from file_name -- and double as the workitemimg:{id} reference tokens for the work item description body. Duplicate file_name values are allowed, both within one call and against existing attachments: each upload creates a new attachment, never a conflict. Heading-type work items accept uploads, but the portal hides the Attachments section on heading items -- attachments there are reachable only through the API. NOT idempotent -- retrying a success silently creates a duplicate; after an ambiguous failure verify with list_work_item_attachments before retrying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview payload without calling Polarion.
project_idYesPolarion project ID.
attachmentsYesFiles to upload in one request.
work_item_idYesWork item ID within project_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
createdYes
dry_runYes
attachment_idsYes
payload_previewYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses that file_path is read from the server process, the 25 MiB cap, non-predictable server-assigned attachment_ids, duplicate file_name behavior, heading-type work item portal limitation, and the non-idempotent nature with a concrete consequence. This is rich, actionable context not present in the annotations, and no contradictions with annotations exist.

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?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically moves to alternatives, constraints, edge cases, and idempotency. Every sentence carries unique information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, annotations, an output schema, and 45 sibling tools, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers usage, constraints, behavioral quirks, failure handling, and result semantics, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains file_path semantics (absolute paths, server-side read), the significance of attachment_ids as reference tokens, duplicate file_name allowances, and the 1–10/25 MiB constraints, which are not fully captured in the property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload 1-10 local files as work item attachments in one request.' It clearly scopes count and context, and immediately distinguishes from the sibling tool create_document_attachments, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'For document attachments use create_document_attachments instead.' It also advises using the Polarion portal for oversized files, splitting oversized batches across calls, and verifying with list_work_item_attachments after ambiguous failures—covering when to use this tool, alternatives, and fallback actions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server