Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteTestRunAttachments

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove multiple attachments from a Polarion test run in one batch. Preview with dry_run before permanent deletion.

Instructions

Deletes a list of Test Run Attachments. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use deleteTestRunAttachment 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.
requestBodyYesThe Test Run Attachment(s) body.

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 / 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by warning that the effect is irreversible and data cannot be recovered through the API. It also explains how the dry-run preview is surfaced (error-flagged but readable text), which an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Purpose, cardinality, and routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no waste. The tail sentence about typed output schemas is useful context but reads as generic boilerplate that may not apply to this tool, which has no output schema, making it slightly less tight than ideal.

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?

Covers the essential decisions: which tool to pick, the destructive and irreversible nature, and how to preview safely. It does not specify how to encode 'full collection' vs 'batch' in the requestBody, and there is no output schema to describe success/error returns, though annotations and the 100%-documented schema cover most remaining ground.

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%, and the schema itself fully documents projectId, testRunId, requestBody, and dry_run (including redaction and byte-length summary). The description's dry_run tip largely restates the schema, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline.

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 a list of Test Run Attachments' — and clarifies cardinality (full collection or batch). It also names the singular sibling deleteTestRunAttachment, so an agent can distinguish them without opening the schema.

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 single-item deletions to deleteTestRunAttachment, and describes cardinality to signal when this batch/collection tool is appropriate. The dry_run tip adds a concrete recommended workflow for safe previewing.

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