Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchCollectionsRelationships

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace all relationship links on a Polarion Collection with supplied data; validate first with dry_run to preview the irreversible request before applying changes.

Instructions

Replaces relationship linkage on one Collection with the supplied relationship data. Read existing links with getCollectionsRelationship; use postCollectionsRelationships to add links without replacing the full set. Effect: irreversible — data removed or overwritten by this call cannot be recovered through the API. 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 Relationship body.
collectionIdYesThe Collection ID.
relationshipIdYesThe relationship's name as it appears under `relationships` in the owning resource (e.g. `assignee`, `author`, `watches`, `linkedWorkItems`), not an ID of an individual link entry.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationshipId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID of the specific relationship entry linking the two resources, as returned by the corresponding get-relationships call."New value: +"The relationship's name as it appears under `relationships` in the owning resource (e.g. `assignee`, `author`, `watches`, `linkedWorkItems`), not an ID of an individual link entry."
  3. 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 / relationshipId / description
      Previous value: -"The Relationship ID."New value: +"The ID of the specific relationship entry linking the two resources, as returned by the corresponding get-relationships call."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already flag the tool as destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds crucial context: this replaces the full relationship set and the effect is irreversible through the API. It further explains the `dry_run` preview behavior and how the executor returns that preview, which is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 the core replace operation, followed by alternatives, irreversibility warning, and dry-run guidance. Most sentences earn their place, though the final sentence about structured content when an output schema is declared is somewhat meta and less essential for invocation.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: replacement semantics, alternatives, irreversibility, and a dry-run validation path. It does not describe the normal success response or permission requirements, but the annotations and rich input schema cover much of the remaining context.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters, including `dry_run`, `projectId`, `collectionId`, `relationshipId`, and `requestBody`. The description adds a useful `dry_run` tip, but does not materially deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it replaces relationship linkage on one Collection with supplied relationship data. It also explicitly distinguishes this operation from `getCollectionsRelationship` for reading and `postCollectionsRelationships` for adding links without replacing the full set. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does versus its siblings.

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 clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: read existing links with `getCollectionsRelationship`, and use `postCollectionsRelationships` when adding links without replacing the full set. It also gives a safe-use recommendation (`dry_run: true`) for this irreversible operation, leaving little inference required.

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