Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deletePlanRelationship

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a specific relationship from a Polarion plan. Preview with dry_run first to avoid irreversible changes.

Instructions

Removes the specific Relationship from the Plan. 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
planIdYesThe Plan ID.
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.
requestBodyYesThe Relationship body.
relationshipIdYesThe relationship's name as it appears under `relationships` in the owning resource (e.g. `assignee`, `author`, `watches`, `linkedWorkItems`), not an ID of an individual link entry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationshipId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID of the specific relationship entry linking the two resources, as returned by the corresponding get-relationships call."New value: +"The relationship's name as it appears under `relationships` in the owning resource (e.g. `assignee`, `author`, `watches`, `linkedWorkItems`), not an ID of an individual link entry."
  2. 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 / relationshipId / description
      Previous value: -"The Relationship ID."New value: +"The ID of the specific relationship entry linking the two resources, as returned by the corresponding get-relationships call."
  3. Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / requestBody / properties / data / items / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "categories",
-  "documents",
-  "document_attachments",
-  "document_comments",
-  "document_parts",
-  "enumerations",
-  "globalroles",
-  "icons",
-  "jobs",
-  "linkedworkitems",
-  "externallylinkedworkitems",
-  "linkedoslcresources",
-  "pages",
-  "page_attachments",
-  "plans",
-  "projectroles",
-  "projectgroups",
-  "projects",
-  "projecttemplates",
-  "spaces",
-  "testparameters",
-  "testparameter_definitions",
-  "testrecords",
-  "teststep_results",
-  "testruns",
-  "testrun_attachments",
-  "teststepresult_attachments",
-  "testrun_comments",
-  "usergroups",
-  "users",
-  "workitems",
-  "workitem_attachments",
-  "workitem_approvals",
-  "workitem_comments",
-  "featureselections",
-  "teststeps",
-  "workrecords",
-  "revisions",
-  "testrecord_attachments"
-]New value: +[
+  "collections",
+  "categories",
+  "documents",
+  "document_attachments",
+  "document_comments",
+  "document_parts",
+  "enumerations",
+  "globalroles",
+  "icons",
+  "jobs",
+  "linkedworkitems",
+  "externallylinkedworkitems",
+  "linkedoslcresources",
+  "llms",
+  "pages",
+  "page_attachments",
+  "page_comments",
+  "plans",
+  "projectroles",
+  "projectgroups",
+  "projects",
+  "projecttemplates",
+  "spaces",
+  "testparameters",
+  "testparameter_definitions",
+  "testrecords",
+  "teststep_results",
+  "testruns",
+  "testrun_attachments",
+  "teststepresult_attachments",
+  "testrun_comments",
+  "usergroups",
+  "users",
+  "workitems",
+  "workitem_attachments",
+  "workitem_approvals",
+  "workitem_comments",
+  "featureselections",
+  "teststeps",
+  "workrecords",
+  "revisions",
+  "testrecord_attachments",
+  "license_slots",
+  "license_types",
+  "license",
+  "metadata",
+  "license_assignments",
+  "customfields"
+]
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly warns that the operation is irreversible and that removed/overwritten data cannot be recovered through the API. It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior, including the note about error-flagged results. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded: purpose, then destructive effect, then the dry_run tip. The final sentence about typed output schemas is slightly tangential because this tool does not have an output schema, but the overall length is still appropriate and focused.

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?

The description covers the essential intent, irreversibility, and safe preview guidance, which is particularly important for a destructive mutation tool. The schema provides rich parameter descriptions. It does not describe success/error response details, but with no output schema and strong parameter documentation, the description is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and it does not need to; the schema already documents planId, projectId, relationshipId, requestBody, and dry_run. No additional semantic value is provided for parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Removes the specific Relationship from the Plan.' This is clear and matches the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like deleteCollectionsRelationship or deleteWorkItemsRelationship, but the Plan-scoped target is evident from the name and description.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is used when a Relationship on a Plan needs to be removed, and the dry_run tip gives operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention related tools such as postPlanRelationships or patchPlanRelationships. The usage context is mostly implied rather than stated.

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