Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteExternallyLinkedWorkItems

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a list of externally linked work items from a Polarion project. Preview with dry_run to avoid irreversible removal.

Instructions

Deletes a list of Externally Linked Work Items. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use deleteExternallyLinkedWorkItem instead. Effect: irreversible — data removed or overwritten by this call cannot be recovered through the API. Tip: set dry_run: true first to preview the exact request Polarion would receive, without changing anything. On tools with a typed output schema, this preview is returned as an error-flagged result since it is not real tool output -- read the text content regardless of that flag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoIf true, validates the request and returns the exact request that would be sent to Polarion — with the Authorization header redacted and any binary payload summarized by byte length — without actually sending it.
projectIdYesThe Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project; call getProjects to list valid IDs.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
requestBodyYesThe Work Item(s) body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description
      Previous value: -"If true, validate and return the request that would be sent without calling Polarion."New value: +"If true, validates the request and returns the exact request that would be sent to Polarion — with the Authorization header redacted and any binary payload summarized by byte length — without actually sending it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"The Project ID."New value: +"The Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project; call getProjects to list valid IDs."
    • changedInput schema / properties / workItemId / description
      Previous value: -"The Work Item ID."New value: +"The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, validate and return the request that would be sent without calling Polarion.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the operation is irreversible and data cannot be recovered through the API, which reinforces the destructiveHint. It also introduces the dry_run tip and explains that the preview appears as an error-flagged result because it's not real tool output. This is genuinely useful information an agent wouldn't get from annotations or schema alone.

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 compact yet information-dense: each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core action, then quickly covers scope, alternative, irreversibility, and a safety tip. There is no filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse in one glance.

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?

For a destructive batch operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, scope, irreversibility, and a dry-run safeguard. It doesn't mention prerequisites like required permissions or behavior when some items don't exist, but given the schema already details the payload and the annotations carry the destructiveness, this is nearly complete. A short note on error/partial-failure behavior would push it to 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the cardinality of the operation ('full collection or a batch') and noting that a single item by ID belongs to the sibling tool.This helps an agent understand how the requestBody array should be populated, which goes slightly beyond the schema's dry property descriptions. Thus a 4 is appropriate.

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 'Deletes a list of Externally Linked Work Items', which is a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies scope with 'Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch.' It also differentiates from the sibling 'deleteExternallyLinkedWorkItem' by explicitly stating for a single item, use that other tool. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from its closest alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when deleting a list, collection, or batch. It explicitly names the alternative for single-item deletion, which is a strong routing signal. However, it doesn't enumerate other situations where this tool should be avoided (e.g., if partial deletion is needed or if soft-delete semantics are required), so it falls short of fully explicit 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

Other Tools