Skip to main content
Glama

patchCollections

Idempotent

Update a Polarion Collection’s attributes from a JSON:API request body, optionally validating with dry_run first to preview the exact request before sending.

Instructions

Updates one Collection’s attributes from the supplied JSON:API request body. Use patchCollectionsRelationships for linkage changes or postCollections to create another Collection. Effect: idempotent — calling it again with the same input leaves the resource in the same end state, with no additional side effects. 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.

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.
projectIdYesThe Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access.
requestBodyYesThe Collection(s) body.
collectionIdYesThe Collection ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"The Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access."
  2. Changed2 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."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not carry the whole safety burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that repeat calls leave the resource in the same end state with no additional side effects and by describing the dry_run preview behavior.

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 alternatives, followed by idempotency and dry_run guidance. It is mostly efficient, though the final sentence about structured content when an output schema exists is somewhat generic here because this tool has no output schema.

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 complex nested-parameter mutation, the description covers purpose, sibling alternatives, idempotency, and dry_run preview behavior. It does not describe the normal update response or permission requirements, and it does not reconcile the requestBody relationships field with the sibling recommendation, leaving minor gaps.

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 documents projectId, collectionId, requestBody, and dry_run. The description adds some context around the JSON:API request body and dry_run preview, but it does not add much meaning beyond the schema and leaves an ambiguity around relationships appearing in the requestBody even though patchCollectionsRelationships is recommended for linkage changes.

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 updates one Collection's attributes from a supplied JSON:API request body. It also explicitly distinguishes this from patchCollectionsRelationships for linkage changes and postCollections for creation, so an agent can identify the correct sibling.

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 gives explicit alternatives with conditions: use patchCollectionsRelationships for linkage changes and postCollections to create another Collection. It additionally recommends dry_run first for validation and preview, which further clarifies safe usage.

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