Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteTestRecordAttachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a specific attachment from a test record using its ID. Preview with dry_run first; action is irreversible.

Instructions

Deletes the specified Test Record Attachment. Cardinality: targets a single item by ID. For the full collection or a batch, use deleteTestRecordAttachments 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.
iterationYesThe iteration number identifying which repeated occurrence of this item is being addressed (e.g. which run of a test parameter).
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.
testRunIdYesThe Test Run's ID within its project.
testCaseIdYesThe Test Case's ID being referenced.
attachmentIdYesThe attachment's ID, as returned by the corresponding list- or get-attachments call for this resource.
testCaseProjectIdYesThe project ID that owns the referenced Test Case — may differ from the project in the request path when the test case is shared from another project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / attachmentId / description
      Previous value: -"The Attachment ID."New value: +"The attachment's ID, as returned by the corresponding list- or get-attachments call for this resource."
    • 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 / iteration / description
      Previous value: -"The Iteration Number."New value: +"The iteration number identifying which repeated occurrence of this item is being addressed (e.g. which run of a test parameter)."
    • 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 / testCaseId / description
      Previous value: -"The Testcase ID."New value: +"The Test Case's ID being referenced."
    • changedInput schema / properties / testCaseProjectId / description
      Previous value: -"The Testcase Project ID."New value: +"The project ID that owns the referenced Test Case — may differ from the project in the request path when the test case is shared from another project."
    • changedInput schema / properties / testRunId / description
      Previous value: -"The Test Run ID."New value: +"The Test Run's ID within its project."
  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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds value by stating irreversibility ('cannot be recovered through the API') and explaining the dry_run preview behavior. It does not contradict any annotation. It could have mentioned behavior on missing attachments, but the annotation-plus-description combination is strong.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: operation, cardinality/alternative, irreversibility, and dry_run guidance. The final sentence about typed output schemas is slightly generic and less relevant because this tool has no output schema, but the rest is tight and front-loaded.

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 single-item delete with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use the plural alternative, irreversibility, and how to preview safely. All required parameters are documented in the schema. The missing response-shape details are acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the relative simplicity of the operation.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in detail, including `dry_run` and the nuanced `testCaseProjectId`. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the single-item cardinality, which is appropriate but not an extra contribution.

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 Test Record Attachment.' It also clarifies cardinality ('targets a single item by ID') and explicitly names the plural sibling `deleteTestRecordAttachments` for batch operations, so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting other 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool for a single targeted attachment, and use `deleteTestRecordAttachments` for the full collection or a batch. The `dry_run: true` tip also provides a safe invocation path before committing to an irreversible operation.

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