Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

moveFromDocument

Remove a work item from its Polarion document without losing data—it returns to the project tracker with all fields and links intact.

Instructions

Removes one Work Item from the Document that currently contains it and returns it to the project's plain Work Item tracker. The Work Item itself is kept with all its fields and links; only its placement in the Document is removed. Use moveToDocument for the reverse. Effect: triggers a server-side action rather than a plain resource creation — whether repeating it is safe, a no-op, or rejected depends on the specific action; treat it as not guaranteed idempotent. 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.

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by clarifying that the Work Item itself is kept with all fields and links, only the Document placement is removed. It also discloses that this triggers a server-side action, is not guaranteed idempotent, and explains dry-run behavior, all of which are non-obvious and not available from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence adds meaningful guidance: the reverse tool, idempotency caveat, dry-run tip, and how to interpret the preview result. It is appropriately detailed without being bloated.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is complete: it explains the effect, what is preserved, the idempotency risk, the safe dry-run path, and the inverse sibling. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents projectId, workItemId, and dry_run. The description reinforces dry_run's purpose, but it does not need to add parameter meaning because the schema covers it thoroughly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it removes a Work Item's placement from a Document and returns it to the project's plain Work Item tracker. It also distinguishes itself from its direct reverse sibling by naming moveToDocument, so an agent can disambiguate without opening other schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use moveToDocument for the reverse,' giving clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance. It also adds a concrete usage tip to set dry_run: true first for a safe preview, which helps the agent decide how to invoke the tool safely.

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