Polarion MCP Server

deleteWorkRecords

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes multiple Polarion Work Records in a batch, with an optional dry run to validate arguments and preview the irreversible request before sending.

Instructions

Deletes a list of Work Records. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use deleteWorkRecord 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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>",
      "requestBody": "<requestBody>"
    },
    "name": "deleteWorkRecords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	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.
`projectId`	Yes	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.
`workItemId`	Yes	The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
`requestBody`	Yes	The Work Record(s) body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.4Oct 29, 2026

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."

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0Sep 17, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dry_run

Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, validate and return the request that would be sent without calling Polarion.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 13, 2026

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, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the explicit irreversibility statement ('cannot be recovered through the API') and the dry_run preview semantics, including how the preview is surfaced. It adds no detail on permissions or partial-failure behavior.

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 operation, then sibling disambiguation, then effect, then tip — a sensible ordering where each sentence carries distinct information. The final sentence about normal text vs. structured preview output is slightly verbose for what it conveys.

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 4-parameter nested-body tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, safety effect and the dry_run validation path, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not describe the success response or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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; the description goes beyond it by explaining batch vs. full-collection targeting for `requestBody` and by describing what `dry_run: true` produces (redacted auth header, byte-length summary of binaries) rather than just naming it.

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 Work Records') and immediately distinguishes cardinality scope from the single-item sibling. An agent can tell it apart from deleteWorkRecord without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes single-item deletions to `deleteWorkRecord` and recommends a dry_run-first workflow, which is actionable guidance. It stops short of stating prerequisites (permissions, whether the parent work item must be mutable) or what happens on partial failure.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server