Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteProjectCustomFields

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a custom field configuration from a single Polarion project. Preview the request with dry-run first; the change is irreversible.

Instructions

Deletes the specified Custom Field configuration from the Project context. Scope: one project (requires a project ID). To act across all projects, use deleteGlobalCustomFields 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.
targetTypeYesIdentifies the target resource type this operation applies to (e.g. `workitem`). Use `~` (no quotes) to mean no specific target type.
resourceTypeYesThe Resource Type.

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 / targetType / description
      Previous value: -"The Type of the object. Use '~' without quotes to represent no target Type."New value: +"Identifies the target resource type this operation applies to (e.g. `workitem`). Use `~` (no quotes) to mean no specific target type."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the effect is irreversible and data cannot be recovered via the API. It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior, including the error-flagged result quirk, which is not visible in annotations or schema. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond structured data.

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 serves a distinct purpose: purpose, scope/alternative, irreversibility, and dry_run tip. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential call decisions: what it does, scope, the alternative for global scope, irreversible effect, and a safe preview mechanism. The dry_run error-flag behavior is a subtle but critical operational detail that would otherwise be a surprise. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying projectId to scoping ('Scope: one project (requires a project ID)') and by recommending dry_run with a concrete purpose ('preview the exact request... without changing anything'). This goes beyond simply restating schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the specified Custom Field configuration') and immediately scopes it to one project. It explicitly names the sibling tool deleteGlobalCustomFields and the condition that selects it (across all projects), making differentiation unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for one project, use deleteGlobalCustomFields for all projects. Also gives a practical workflow tip (dry_run first) with a clear rationale. There is no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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