mcp-server-polarion

list_document_attachments

Read-only

Retrieve a paginated list of attachments for a specific Polarion document. Use the returned IDs to reference attachment tokens in document bodies.

Instructions

List a document's attachments as a paginated page.

Document attachments only, not work item attachments. Returned id is the exact token a body references as attachment:{id}; Polarion never validates that reference, so a body may point at a missing file. Order is server-defined and not requestable. Use read_document for body context, list_documents for valid space/document ids.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`space_id`	Yes	Space ID ('_default' = default space).
`page_size`	No
`project_id`	Yes	Polarion project ID.
`page_number`	No
`document_name`	Yes	Document name within space_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`has_more`	No
`page_size`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses important behavior: the returned id is the exact attachment token used in bodies, Polarion never validates references (so missing files possible), and ordering is server-defined. These details are not inferable from annotations or schema.

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?

Every sentence provides distinct value: scope, id behavior, ordering, and cross-tool guidance. Efficient and well-structured despite moderate length.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It fully covers behavioral context, usage boundaries, and guidance for related tools, making it complete for a paginated-list operation.

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 covers 60% of parameters (space_id, project_id, document_name have descriptions). The description adds no direct parameter semantics beyond implying pagination with 'paginated page.' page_size and page_number remain undocumented in the description but are self-explanatory from defaults.

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 states 'List a document's attachments as a paginated page' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'Document attachments only, not work item attachments.'

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?

It explicitly scopes the tool (document attachments only) and guides users to alternative tools: 'Use read_document for body context, list_documents for valid space/document ids.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server