Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

deleteTestStep

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a specific test step from a Polarion work item using its project ID, work item ID, and step index. Use dry_run to preview the request before permanent removal.

Instructions

Deletes the specified Test Step. Cardinality: targets a single item by ID. For the full collection or a batch, use deleteTestSteps 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.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
testStepIndexYesThe Test Step index.

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 / workItemId / description
      Previous value: -"The Work Item ID."New value: +"The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads."
  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 mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds specific behavioral detail: changes are irreversible and cannot be recovered via API. It also explains the dry_run preview behavior, including how the error-flagged result should be interpreted, which is not present in annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and cardinality, then offers the alternative, effect, and a practical tip. The dry_run explanation is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes useful information; no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: scope (single item), irreversibility, batch alternative, and dry_run usage. It could mention error conditions or permissions, but given the annotations and schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's cardinality note ('targets a single item by ID') adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, and the dry_run tip is more usage guidance than parameter semantics.

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 'Deletes the specified Test Step' – a specific verb and resource. It then clarifies cardinality ('targets a single item by ID') and explicitly contrasts with the batch sibling `deleteTestSteps`, so an agent can easily distinguish this tool from alternatives.

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 directly instructs when to use the batch alternative: 'For the full collection or a batch, use `deleteTestSteps` instead.' It also advises a safe invocation pattern with `dry_run: true`, providing clear conditional 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