Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deletePlanRelationship

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a named relationship from a Polarion Plan while keeping the related resource intact. Use dry_run first to validate and preview the irreversible request.

Instructions

Removes the named relationship from one Plan without deleting the related resource. Read current links with getPlanRelationship; use postPlanRelationships to add links or patchPlanRelationships to replace them. Effect: irreversible — data removed or overwritten by this call cannot be recovered through the API. Tip: set dry_run: true first to validate the arguments and preview the exact request without sending it to Polarion. The executor returns this preview as normal text, and as structured content when the tool declares an output schema.

Input 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. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access.
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 changedv1.4.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"The Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access."
  2. 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."
  3. 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."
  4. 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"
+]
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: the effect is irreversible and removed or overwritten data cannot be recovered through the API. It also explains what dry_run returns in preview mode, which is useful behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves efficiently through alternatives, destructive effect, and the dry_run tip. Each sentence contributes useful routing or safety information without excessive repetition.

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?

For a destructive relationship-deletion tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: what is removed, what is preserved, alternative operations, irreversibility, and a safe dry-run path. The remaining structural details are fully handled by the input schema.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds some contextual meaning around dry_run and the relationship name, but it does not materially expand on the nested requestBody structure 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 states a specific verb and resource: it removes a named relationship from a Plan while explicitly preserving the related resource. It also names the sibling tools for reading, adding, and replacing relationships, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent operations without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: use getPlanRelationship to read current links, postPlanRelationships to add, patchPlanRelationships to replace, and this tool to delete. It further advises setting dry_run first to validate arguments, which is actionable usage 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