Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchGlobalEnumeration

DestructiveIdempotent

Replaces all options of a global Polarion Enumeration, deleting any omitted from the request body. Read the current list first and set dry_run to preview irreversible changes.

Instructions

Replaces the entire option list of one global Enumeration: options missing from requestBody are deleted, not merged. Read the current list with getGlobalEnumeration first and send every option you want to keep. Scope: spans every project (no project filter). To act on a single project, use patchProjectEnumeration instead. 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.
enumNameYesThe Enumeration Name.
targetTypeYesThe configured subtype for this enumeration or custom field (e.g. `requirement` for a Work Item type). Use `~` (without quotes) when the configuration applies to every subtype.
enumContextYesThe Enumeration context. (Allowed values are '~', 'plans', 'testing' and 'documents'. Use '~' for Work Item or general enumerations.)
requestBodyYesThe Enumeration(s) body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / targetType / description
      Previous value: -"Identifies the target resource type this operation applies to (e.g. `workitem`). Use `~` (no quotes) to mean no specific target type."New value: +"The configured subtype for this enumeration or custom field (e.g. `requirement` for a Work Item type). Use `~` (without quotes) when the configuration applies to every subtype."
  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 / targetType / description
      Previous value: -"The Enumeration target type. (Use '~' when there is no specific type for the enumeration.)"New value: +"Identifies the target resource type this operation applies to (e.g. `workitem`). Use `~` (no quotes) to mean no specific target type."
  3. Changed3 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 / properties / attributes / properties / options / items / properties / limited
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestBody / properties / data / properties / attributes / properties / options / items / properties / linkRules
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "fromTypes": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "sameType": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "toTypes": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by spelling out the concrete consequence: options absent from requestBody are deleted, and the effect is irreversible with no API-level recovery. It also explains the dry_run preview behavior (Authorization header redacted, binary payloads summarized), which is materially useful for a destructive call.

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-loaded with the destructive replace semantics and tightly organized into scope, alternative, effect, and tip sentences. The closing sentence about the executor returning previews as structured content when an output schema is declared is boilerplate noise for a tool with no output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, deeply nested 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: replacement semantics, required read-before-write step, blast radius across all projects, irreversibility, the project-scoped alternative, and a safe dry_run path. Nothing essential 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by explaining that requestBody is treated as the complete replacement list rather than a partial update, and by describing dry_run's validation-and-preview contract. It does not, however, give hints about the nested option fields (id vs name, color, linkRules, etc.).

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 ('Replaces the entire option list of one global Enumeration') and immediately clarifies the replace-not-merge semantics that distinguish it from a patch-by-merge operation. It also names the sibling it is not (patchProjectEnumeration) so the agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 preconditions ('Read the current list with getGlobalEnumeration first and send every option you want to keep'), states scope (spans every project, no project filter), and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('To act on a single project, use patchProjectEnumeration instead'). It further recommends a dry_run-first workflow.

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