Polarion MCP Server

overwriteDocumentParts

Overwrite multiple Work Item Document Parts in Polarion by specifying project, space, document, and part IDs. Use dry_run to preview the exact request before applying changes.

Instructions

Overwrites multiple Work Item Document Parts. 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

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.
`spaceId`	Yes	The Document Space ID (a folder-like grouping of documents/pages within a project). Use `_default` (no quotes) to address the project's default space.
`projectId`	Yes	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.
`requestBody`	Yes	Parameters for overwriting multiple Work Item Document Parts.
`documentName`	Yes	The Document name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 / spaceId / description

Previous value: -"The Space ID. (Use '_default' without quotes to address the default Space.)"New value: +"The Document Space ID (a folder-like grouping of documents/pages within a project). Use `_default` (no quotes) to address the project's default space."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "properties": {
+        "overwrittenParts": {
+          "description": "Array of Part ID mappings showing old and new IDs.",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "newPartId": {
+                "description": "New Part ID after overwrite operation.",
+                "example": "MyProjectId/MySpaceId/MyDocumentId/workitem_MyWorkItemId",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "oldPartId": {
+                "description": "Original Part ID before overwrite operation.",
+                "example": "MyProjectId/MySpaceId/MyDocumentId/workitem_MyWorkItemId",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that the operation triggers a server-side action rather than a plain resource creation, that effects vary by action, and that dry_run returns an error-flagged result for preview. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand expected behavior without contradicting any hint.

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 four sentences and stays focused. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the effect, then offers a tip, and finally clarifies the error flag. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be tightened by removing the slightly repetitive 'whether repeating it is safe...' phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested requestBody, 5 parameters, output schema), the description covers key aspects: idempotency, dry_run behavior, and how to interpret the preview result. It does not explain what a successful overwrite returns, but the output schema likely covers that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions dry_run and its purpose, but that is also in the schema. It does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Overwrites multiple Work Item Document Parts,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this as an overwrite operation, contrasting with sibling tools like postDocumentParts (creation) and deleteDocumentParts (deletion). The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like postDocumentParts or patchDocumentPart. It mentions behavioral traits (server-side action, non-idempotent) but provides no guidance on selecting this tool over siblings. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server