Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteTestRunAttachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a single attachment from a Polarion test run by supplying project, test run, and attachment IDs. Preview the request with dry_run to avoid irreversible deletion.

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 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.
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. 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."
  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

A4.4/5.0
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 the irreversibility ('irreversible — data removed or overwritten by this call cannot be recovered through the API'). It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior and how to interpret the error-flagged preview result, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail auth requirements or rate limits, but the destructive nature and preview behavior are well covered.

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 and front-loaded: the core action and cardinality come first, followed by the sibling distinction, the irreversibility warning, and the dry_run tip. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 delete with a typed schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It explains the batch alternative, the irreversible effect, and the dry_run preview. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what a successful response looks like, but there is no output schema and the tool's behavior is simple enough that this is not a significant omission.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds the dry_run preview semantics and the note that attachmentId comes from list/get-attachment calls, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('the specified Test Run Attachment'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the batch sibling `deleteTestRunAttachments`. It also clarifies cardinality ('targets a single item by ID'), which removes any ambiguity about scope.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'For the full collection or a batch, use `deleteTestRunAttachments` instead.' It also provides a concrete usage tip: set `dry_run: true` first to preview the request without changing anything. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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