Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

deleteWorkItemAttachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a Polarion Work Item attachment irreversibly; use dry_run first to validate arguments and preview the exact request without sending it.

Instructions

Deletes the specified Work Item Attachment. 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.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
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 / 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."
  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 readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known; the description still adds real value by saying the effect is irreversible and that data cannot be recovered through the API, plus what dry_run returns. The closing sentence about structured content is slightly muddled since no output schema is declared, which keeps it off a 5.

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 purpose, then the consequence, then the safe-path tip — a sensible order. The final sentence about text vs structured preview is meta-commentary that adds little for the calling agent and is the weakest part of the text.

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, no-output-schema mutation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the critical unknowns: irreversibility and a validation path. It does not address behavior when the attachment is absent or permission requirements, but those are secondary for this tool shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema carries projectId/workItemId/attachmentId semantics. The description adds workflow meaning for dry_run (preview exact request without sending), which goes beyond the boolean's type-level documentation.

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 precise verb and resource ("Deletes the specified Work Item Attachment") and scopes it to exactly one object type, which cleanly separates it from the many other attachment-delete siblings in the list (deletePageAttachment, deleteTestRunAttachment, deleteTestStepResultAttachment). An agent can pick it 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete operational guideline — run dry_run first to validate and preview — which is genuine usage advice rather than a restatement. It stops short of naming when not to use it or which sibling to reach for instead (e.g. patchWorkItemAttachment), so it is clear context but not full routing.

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