Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteTestRunAttachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a single Test Run Attachment by ID, with optional dry-run validation. Use it to remove one attachment irreversibly; preview the request first to avoid accidental data loss.

Instructions

Deletes the specified Test Run Attachment. Cardinality: targets a single item by ID. For the full collection or a batch, use deleteTestRunAttachments 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.
testRunIdYesThe Test Run's ID within its project.
attachmentIdYesThe attachment's ID, as returned by the corresponding list- or get-attachments call for this resource.

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. Changed4 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 / 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 / testRunId / description
      Previous value: -"The Test Run ID."New value: +"The Test Run's ID within its project."
  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, and the description reinforces this with a plain statement that the effect is irreversible and unrecoverable through the API. It also explains the dry-run preview behavior and how the preview is surfaced (text vs. structured content), which annotations do not convey; it stops short of mentioning required permissions or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cardinality, followed by the alternative, the destructive warning, and the dry-run tip — every sentence carries operational value. The closing sentence about text vs. structured preview is slightly meta and could be trimmed.

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 single-item destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, irreversibility, the batch alternative, and a validation path — enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around permission requirements and what the response contains on success.

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 four parameters (including `dry_run`) are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only echoes the `dry_run` semantics rather than adding new meaning about `projectId`, `testRunId`, or `attachmentId`.

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 the specified Test Run Attachment') and immediately clarifies cardinality ('targets a single item by ID'), which is exactly the axis an agent needs to distinguish it from `deleteTestRunAttachments`.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for one item, use `deleteTestRunAttachments` for the full collection or a batch. It also gives a concrete pre-flight procedure (set `dry_run: true` first), so both when-to-use and how-to-verify are covered.

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