Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchAllWorkItems

Apply batch updates to multiple Polarion Work Items across all projects; use dry-run validation to preview the request before sending changes.

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. 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. Examples: {"requestBody":{"data":[{"type":"workitems","id":"myproject/WI-123","attributes":{"status":"inprogress"}}]}}. Selection: Use patchAllWorkItems for a batch spanning projects; use patchWorkItems for a batch in one project and patchWorkItem for one known item.

Input 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: the cross-project blast radius, the dry_run preview behavior, and how the preview is returned. It stops short of saying whether a batch is atomic or what happens on partial failure, which matters for a multi-item mutation.

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-loads the verb, scope, and alternative before the tip and example, so an agent can act on the first two sentences. The meta-sentence about the executor returning preview as text versus structured content is slightly verbose but carries a genuine behavioral detail.

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 deeply nested schema with no output schema, the definition covers scope, routing, validation, and a payload example. It could still say more about response shape on success or partial-failure semantics, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by supplying a concrete JSON example of the requestBody shape that the schema only describes structurally. The workflowAction parameter is left to the schema, but that is acceptable given full coverage.

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 ('Updates a list of Work Items') plus an explicit scope ('Global context, spans every project'). The sibling patchWorkItems is named as the single-project alternative, so an agent can distinguish them 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing rules: batch spanning projects -> patchAllWorkItems, batch in one project -> patchWorkItems, single known item -> patchWorkItem. It also recommends validating with dry_run first, which is actionable guidance, not just context.

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