Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchLinkedWorkItem

Idempotent

Updates a Work Item's direct outgoing links to other Work Items, excluding external links and backlinks. Use dry_run to validate arguments and preview the request without sending it to Polarion.

Instructions

Updates the direct outgoing links to other Work Items. (The same as the corresponding Java API method.) Does not pertain to external links or backlinks. 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
roleIdYesThe Role ID.
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.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
requestBodyYesThe Linked Work Item(s) body.
targetProjectIdYesThe Target Project ID.
linkedWorkItemIdYesThe Linked Work Item 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. 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 / workItemId / description
      Previous value: -"The Work Item ID."New value: +"The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads."
  3. Changed1 schema field 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"
+}
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the idempotency sentence is largely a restatement, though it adds the clarifying 'leaves the resource in the same end state'. The dry_run preview behavior (redacted Authorization header, binary payload summarized) is genuine added context. Nothing is said about permissions needed or whether existing links in the same role are replaced or merged, which matters for a link-composition patch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the '(The same as the corresponding Java API method.)' parenthetical earns no place, the idempotency clause duplicates an annotation, and the dry_run tip sprawls across two sentences into executor/output-schema mechanics rather than tool behavior.

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?

For a 7-parameter, 6-required, nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and safety but leaves the semantics of the requestBody payload (how roleId, targetProjectId and linkedWorkItemId combine into the link) unexplained. An agent can form the call sketch but not fully predict the resulting link structure.

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% for the top-level parameters, so the schema already documents roleId, projectId, workItemId, targetProjectId, linkedWorkItemId and dry_run. The description adds nothing about them, and the nested requestBody fields (data.id, data.type, attributes.suspect/revision) are undescribed in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Updates the direct outgoing links to other Work Items', and explicitly scopes out external links and backlinks, which distinguishes it from deleteExternallyLinkedWorkItem and postBacklinkedWorkItems. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest siblings postLinkedWorkItems, deleteLinkedWorkItem or patchWorkItemRelationships.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Two useful signals: the negative scope ('does not pertain to external links or backlinks') and the dry_run-first recommendation for validating arguments. But it never says when to patch versus create (postLinkedWorkItems) or remove (deleteLinkedWorkItem) a link, so the agent must infer the alternative routing.

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