Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchCustomField

Idempotent

Update custom fields for a resource in a Polarion project, with optional dry-run to preview the exact request before applying changes.

Instructions

Updates the specified Custom Fields in the Project context. 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 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.
projectIdYesThe 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.
targetTypeYesIdentifies the target resource type this operation applies to (e.g. `workitem`). Use `~` (no quotes) to mean no specific target type.
requestBodyYesCustom Fields Body
resourceTypeYesThe Resource Type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 / targetType / description
      Previous value: -"The Custom Field target type. (Use '~' when there is no specific type for the Prototype.)"New value: +"Identifies the target resource type this operation applies to (e.g. `workitem`). Use `~` (no quotes) to mean no specific target type."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly explains idempotency in plain language and details the dry_run preview behavior, including the error-flagged result quirk. This materially helps an agent predict side effects and interpret outputs, with no contradiction to 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 purpose and is generally concise. The final sentence about typed output schema is somewhat long and could be trimmed, but the overall structure is clear and each sentence adds information.

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 idempotency and dry_run, and the schema handles parameter meanings. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from the identically-purposed sibling patchProjectCustomFields, which is a notable completeness gap for a tool-selection scenario. Given the large sibling list and lack of output schema, more context would be expected.

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 per rubric the baseline is 3. The description's dry_run tip adds usage advice but no new semantic meaning; all parameter semantics are already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Updates') and resource ('Custom Fields in the Project context'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling patchProjectCustomFields, but the purpose is still understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patchProjectCustomFields or patchGlobalCustomFields. The dry_run tip is a how-to-use hint, but not a when-to-use instruction, so the agent receives no decision support between similar patch tools.

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