Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchPlan

Idempotent

Update a Polarion plan's attributes, dates, status, capacity, or work item relationships by supplying project ID, plan ID, and request body. Use dry_run to preview the request before applying changes.

Instructions

Updates the specified Plan. 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
planIdYesThe Plan 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; call getProjects to list valid IDs.
requestBodyYesThe Plan body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 / 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."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description elaborates on the idempotent behavior already hinted at in annotations, explicitly stating that calling it again with the same input leaves the resource in the same end state with no additional side effects. It also discloses the dry_run functionality and the behavior that preview results appear as error-flagged output. These details add value beyond the annotations (which only provide idempotentHint, destructiveHint, readOnlyHint). There is no contradiction with annotations; the description aligns with the non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent flags.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose in a single sentence, then immediately provides the idempotency clarification and the dry_run tip. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every sentence serves a distinct function. The front-loading of the primary action makes it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose at a glance.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the tool returns or what happens on success/failure. It does not mention the return value or error behavior beyond the dry_run preview. It also does not provide guidance on prerequisites or permissions, which might be relevant for a mutation tool. However, the schema is very detailed, covering the request body structure, and the annotations cover safety aspects. The description adequately covers the idempotency and dry_run behavior but leaves out return-value expectations and usage context, making it moderately complete but not fully sufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including detailed descriptions for dry_run, projectId, planId, and requestBody. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. It mentions dry_run as a tip, but that information is already present in the schema's description. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation thoroughly, the description adds minimal value in this dimension.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates the specified Plan.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it is easy to understand that this tool modifies a Plan object. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like patchPlanRelationships, which also target Plans but for relationships specifically. The name and description together make it clear enough that it's about updating the Plan's core properties, but the lack of sibling differentiation prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides a tip about using dry_run but does not offer any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patchPlanRelationships or patchProject. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not, nor any exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you need to update a Plan,' but there is no explicit comparison to other patch tools or conditions that would select one over another.

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