Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchPageRelationships

Idempotent

Updates a page's relationship list in a Polarion project. Idempotent—same input leaves the end state unchanged. Preview with dry_run before applying.

Instructions

Updates a list of Page Relationships. 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.
spaceIdYesThe Document Space ID (a folder-like grouping of documents/pages within a project). Use `_default` (no quotes) to address the project's default space.
pageNameYesThe Rich Page's ID/name within its space — its stable identifier, not its display title.
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.
requestBodyYesThe Relationship body.
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 changedv1.2.2
    • 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."
  2. Changed5 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 / pageName / description
      Previous value: -"The Page name."New value: +"The Rich Page's ID/name within its space — its stable identifier, not its display title."
    • 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / spaceId / description
      Previous value: -"The Space ID. (Use '_default' without quotes to address the default Space.)"New value: +"The Document Space ID (a folder-like grouping of documents/pages within a project). Use `_default` (no quotes) to address the project's default space."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description explicitly states the idempotent effect and adds crucial dry_run behavior, including the nuance that the preview is returned as an error-flagged result. This provides valuable context that the annotations alone do not convey, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and idempotence, the second gives the dry_run tip, and the third clarifies the error-flag nuance. It is front-loaded with the core action and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the key behavioral aspects (idempotence, dry_run) and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. It does not mention permissions or prerequisites, but for a patch operation with this level of schema documentation, it is reasonably complete. A 5 would require explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, which is missing.

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 fully documents all six parameters, including the dry_run flag's behavior. The description's dry_run tip adds a small practical note (previewing without changes) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Updates') and a specific resource ('a list of Page Relationships'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPageRelationships, postPageRelationships, and deletePageRelationships. The action is unambiguous, and the parameter list reinforces the resource type (pageName, relationshipId).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for updating page relationships (as opposed to other relationship types like plan or work item relationships) through the resource-specific parameters, and the idempotence and dry_run tips provide practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative patch tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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