Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchTestRunAttachment

Idempotent

Update an existing Test Run attachment by renaming its metadata or replacing its file content. Keeps the attachment ID; use for re-uploading or renaming a file already in Polarion.

Instructions

Updates one existing Test Run attachment: its metadata (e.g. title) via requestBody.resource, and optionally replaces the stored file by passing base64-encoded bytes in requestBody.content. The attachment keeps its ID. Use this to rename or re-upload a file that already exists; to add a new file use postTestRunAttachments, and to read the current file use getTestRunAttachmentContent. 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.
testRunIdYesThe Test Run's ID within its project.
requestBodyNoAttachment metadata and file data.
attachmentIdYesThe attachment's ID, as returned by the corresponding list- or get-attachments call for this resource.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachmentId / description
      Added value: +"The attachment's ID, as returned by the corresponding list- or get-attachments call for this resource."
    • 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Added 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / testRunId / description
      Added value: +"The Test Run's ID within its project."
  2. Changed2 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / requestBody / description
      Previous value: -"Attachment meta data and file data."New value: +"Attachment metadata and file data."
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the concrete effect of the operation: the attachment keeps its ID, and the call is idempotent with no additional side effects when repeated with the same input. It also reveals the dry_run preview behavior and the trait that on typed output schemas the preview is returned as an error-flagged result, which is not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, uses labeled sections such as 'Effect:' and 'Tip:' to organize secondary details, and every sentence contributes operational value. The dry_run sentence is slightly extended, but it earns its place by warning about the error-flagged preview.

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 PATCH tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: capability, sibling differentiation, idempotence, requestBody structure, and dry_run behavior. Required parameters are already documented in the schema, and no return-value contract is necessary for a modify operation.

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. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the opaque `requestBody` parameter: metadata lives under `requestBody.resource` (e.g., `title`), and the optional replacement file is passed as base64-encoded bytes under `requestBody.content`. However, it does not explicitly state how `requestBody` should be serialized (e.g., JSON-encoded string) despite the schema type being `string`, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Updates one existing Test Run attachment,' and details what can be updated: metadata via `requestBody.resource` and the stored file via `requestBody.content`. It also notes the attachment keeps its ID and explicitly names sibling tools (`postTestRunAttachments`, `getTestRunAttachmentContent`), so an agent can easily distinguish this operation.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to rename or re-upload a file that already exists.' It then contrasts that with alternatives: use `postTestRunAttachments` to add a new file, and `getTestRunAttachmentContent` to read the current file. This provides both positive and negative usage guidance.

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