Skip to main content
Glama

deletePlans

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a batch of Polarion plans by ID, with optional dry_run validation to preview the irreversible request before execution.

Instructions

Deletes a list of Plans. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use deletePlan instead. 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
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 Plan(s) body.

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. Changed2 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."
  3. 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"
      +}
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds value beyond them: it spells out that the effect is irreversible and unrecoverable through the API, and explains exactly what dry_run returns (redacted Authorization header, byte-length-summarized binaries) and in which channel (text vs. structured content). Minor gap: no mention of permission requirements or side effects on related plans/relationships.

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 purpose and sibling-routing rule are front-loaded, and each labeled clause (Cardinality, Effect, Tip) carries distinct information. It is slightly padded — the explanation of how the executor returns the preview is longer than an agent strictly needs — but nothing is redundant.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: irreversibility, the single-vs-batch routing, and the dry-run escape hatch. What remains unstated is whether deletion cascades to dependent records (plan relationships, test records) and what permissions are needed, which is the main residual gap.

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 schema already documents projectId, dry_run, and requestBody, and the description's dry_run advice only restates that. The nested requestBody ('The Plan(s) body.') is the least documented element and the description adds nothing about its `data[].id`/`type: plans` structure, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a list of Plans') plus the cardinality semantics ('targets the full collection or a batch'), and names the sibling to use for the single-item case (`deletePlan`). An agent can distinguish this from deletePlan without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule ('For a single item by ID, use `deletePlan` instead') and a recommended pre-flight procedure (set `dry_run: true` first to validate and preview). Both when-to-use and which-alternative are stated outright, not implied.

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