Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchTestRuns

Idempotent

Update multiple Polarion test runs in a single batch operation. Use dry_run to preview the exact request without making changes.

Instructions

Updates a list of Test Runs. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use patchTestRun instead. 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.
requestBodyYesThe Test Run(s) 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explains the idempotent effect in detail ('calling it again with the same input leaves the resource in the same end state, with no additional side effects'), which goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by clarifying what that means. It also discloses the `dry_run` behavior, including the error-flagged preview result, which is not covered by annotations. This adds valuable transparency without contradicting the 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then cardinality, then behavior and usage tips. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is efficient and highly scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested requestBody, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, scope (batch vs single), idempotency, and the dry_run preview feature. It doesn't detail the response format, but with no output schema that is not expected. The missing piece is perhaps a more explicit note about the required parameters, but the schema already marks them as required. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (projectId, requestBody, dry_run), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a small amount of context about cardinality ('targets the full collection or a batch') and a tip about dry_run, but does not significantly enhance the semantic understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Updates a list of Test Runs') with a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes this from the singular `patchTestRun` by noting cardinality and directing to the alternative. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and sets it apart from its siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'For a single item by ID, use `patchTestRun` instead', giving clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming the alternative. It also provides a practical tip about using `dry_run: true` to preview the request, which is actionable context for when to use this feature.

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