Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchAllWorkItems

Idempotent

Update multiple Work Items across all Polarion projects in one call. Use this to apply batch changes or trigger a workflow action globally, with an optional dry_run to preview the exact request before applying.

Instructions

Updates a list of Work Items in the Global context. Scope: spans every project (no project filter). To act on a single project, use patchWorkItems instead. Effect: not guaranteed idempotent — this call can trigger a workflow action, and re-running a workflow action from a different resulting status has real additional side effects (status change, signatures, notifications). 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.
requestBodyYesThe Work Item(s) body.
workflowActionNoThe Workflow Action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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."
  2. Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestBody / properties / data / items / properties / attributes / properties / hyperlinks / items / properties / title
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly states 'not guaranteed idempotent' and warns of additional side effects, but the annotations declare idempotentHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does provide useful transparency about side effects and dry_run behavior, but the contradiction with the annotation is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust, so it scores 1.

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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, then provides an alternative, side effects, and a dry_run tip. It is a bit lengthy but each sentence serves a clear purpose and adds value. It earns a 4 for being well-structured and informative without unnecessary fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers scope, side effects, and dry_run behavior, which is substantial. However, the contradiction regarding idempotency makes it misleading about a critical aspect, and it does not fully explain the workflow action side effects in detail. Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, it is not fully complete, so a 3 is justified.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the three parameters (dry_run, requestBody, workflowAction), so the schema already documents them. The description adds a tip about dry_run behavior and error-flagged results, which adds context but not parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'a list of Work Items', and explicitly scopes it to the Global context with no project filter. It distinguishes itself from the sibling patchWorkItems by noting the single-project alternative, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (global, multi-project updates) and directs the user to patchWorkItems for single-project actions. It also provides a concrete recommendation to use dry_run for preview, which is a clear usage guideline.

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