mcp-server-polarion

delete_work_item_links

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove outgoing links from a source work item by specifying link role and target work item ID. Idempotent: safe to retry without error.

Instructions

Delete one or more outgoing links from a single source work item.

Mirrors create_work_item_links: same source coordinates, structured refs for each target. Only outgoing ("forward") links are removed through this endpoint. Back links are removed by calling this tool on the other work item (the one owning the outgoing side). External hyperlinks live on hyperlinks and are managed via update_work_item.

How to identify links:

From a prior create_work_item_links call: reuse the same specs (drop suspect / revision -- delete needs only role + target).
From list_work_item_links(direction="forward"): each item's role and id (the target's short ID) form one ref; target_project_id defaults to project_id for same-project.

Idempotent at the body level: Polarion silently ignores refs whose composite id does not match an existing link, deletes any refs that do match, and returns 204 either way. So re-deleting an already-removed link is a no-op, and a mixed batch (some real, some stale) succeeds for the real ones without surfacing the stale ones. ValueError is reserved for path-level 404 -- the source work item itself does not exist; the body-level "link not found" case never reaches the tool layer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Source work item's project ID.
`work_item_id`	Yes	Source work item ID (the links' outgoing endpoint).
`links`	Yes	One or more existing outgoing links to delete.
`dry_run`	No	When True, return payload preview without calling Polarion.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deleted`	Yes	True on a real delete; False on dry-run.
`dry_run`	Yes	Whether this was a dry-run.
`link_ids`	No	Composite 5-segment ids reconstructed from the request refs.
`payload_preview`	No	JSON:API payload sent or previewed; None after real ops.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that only outgoing links are removed, explains idempotent behavior (silently ignores non-matching refs, returns 204), and clarifies error cases (ValueError for 404, not for missing links). This enriches the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 description is well-structured with paragraphs and bold for key terms. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Slight redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (deleting links with structured refs), the description covers how to identify links, idempotency, and error scenarios. It does not mention output schema, but that is handled separately. The description is sufficient for correct usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds contextual usage, like how to derive link specs from create or list calls, but does not introduce new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool deletes outgoing links from a single source work item, distinguishing it from related tools like update_work_item for hyperlinks and mentioning it mirrors create_work_item_links. The verb 'delete' and resource 'outgoing links' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (deleting links), how to identify links from prior create or list calls, and what not to do (back links require the other work item). It also explains idempotency and error behavior, giving clear practical instructions.

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

Install Server

Latest Blog Posts

Lightport: Open-Sourcing Glama's AI Gateway
By punkpeye on April 27, 2026.
open source
OpenAI
Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security

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