Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteProjectTestParameterDefinitions

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes multiple test parameter definitions from a specified Polarion project. Use dry_run to preview the request before permanently removing data.

Instructions

Deletes a list of Test Parameter Definitions for the specified Project. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use deleteProjectTestParameterDefinition 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.
requestBodyYesThe Test Parameter Definition(s) body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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."
  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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the hint: the operation is irreversible and data 'cannot be recovered through the API.' It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior and the unusual error-flagged preview result, providing behavioral nuance the annotations alone do not convey.

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. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, cardinality, sibling alternative, irreversibility, and dry_run guidance are all front-loaded and directly useful. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 batch operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains scope, irreversibility, the safer dry_run flow, and how to interpret the preview result. An agent has all necessary context to call this tool correctly and avoid unintended data loss.

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` adequately. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond reaffirming the dry_run tip. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.

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 a list of Test Parameter Definitions for the specified Project.' It also clarifies cardinality ('full collection or a batch') and explicitly differentiates from the single-item sibling by naming `deleteProjectTestParameterDefinition`. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use boundaries: batch or full-collection deletion vs. 'For a single item by ID, use `deleteProjectTestParameterDefinition` instead.' It also offers a concrete usage tip (`dry_run: true`) to preview the request. This fully guides an agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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