Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

getAvatar

Read-only

Downloads a Polarion user's avatar image by User ID and returns it as image content, refusing files over 20 MB.

Instructions

Downloads the avatar image of one user. Images (PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP) come back as image content, UTF-8 text files as text, and any other file (PDF, Office, ZIP) as an embedded base64 resource; files over 20 MB are refused. Since avatars are images, this is rarely useful to an agent; for a user's name, email, and other profile data use getUser, and to replace the image use updateAvatar.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesThe User ID.
response_formatNoResponse detail level. concise removes redundant HTML and JSON:API metadata and may use a small default fieldset on large lists; detailed preserves the complete response. Defaults to detailed.detailed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "detailed",
+  "description": "Response detail level. concise removes redundant HTML and JSON:API metadata and may use a small default fieldset on large lists; detailed preserves the complete response. Defaults to detailed.",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "detailed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: content-type-dependent return shapes (image content vs text vs embedded base64 resource) and a hard 20 MB refusal threshold. That is exactly the kind of payload/limit detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then behavior, then routing. Slight padding in the exhaustive PDF/Office/ZIP taxonomy, which is near-impossible for an avatar and reads as generic file-download boilerplate, but nothing is materially wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself, and it does: type mapping, encoding, and size limit are all stated. Combined with the alternative-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to decide and to interpret the response.

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 both parameters (`userId`, `response_format`) are documented in the schema, including the enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus scope: 'Downloads the avatar image of one user.' It also pre-empts confusion with `getUser` (profile data) and `updateAvatar` (replace image), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

Explicit routing: use `getUser` for name/email/profile data, `updateAvatar` to replace the image, and a candid note that this call is 'rarely useful to an agent.' That is a clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named-alternatives triad.

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