Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchTestStepResult

Idempotent

Update a single test step result in Polarion by specifying project, test run, test case, iteration, and step index. Supports dry-run preview to validate changes before applying.

Instructions

Updates the specified Test Step Result. Cardinality: targets a single item by ID. For the full collection or a batch, use patchTestStepResults 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.
iterationYesThe iteration number identifying which repeated occurrence of this item is being addressed (e.g. which run of a test parameter).
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.
testCaseIdYesThe Test Case's ID being referenced.
requestBodyYesThe Test Step(s) body.
testStepIndexYesThe Test Step index.
testCaseProjectIdYesThe project ID that owns the referenced Test Case — may differ from the project in the request path when the test case is shared from another project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 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 / iteration / description
      Previous value: -"The Iteration Number."New value: +"The iteration number identifying which repeated occurrence of this item is being addressed (e.g. which run of a test parameter)."
    • 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 / testCaseId / description
      Previous value: -"The Testcase ID."New value: +"The Test Case's ID being referenced."
    • changedInput schema / properties / testCaseProjectId / description
      Previous value: -"The Testcase Project ID."New value: +"The project ID that owns the referenced Test Case — may differ from the project in the request path when the test case is shared from another project."
    • changedInput schema / properties / testRunId / description
      Previous value: -"The Test Run ID."New value: +"The Test Run's ID within its project."
  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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter, but it still adds valuable context: it spells out what idempotent means in effect ('leaves the resource in the same end state, with no additional side effects') and explains in detail how `dry_run` behaves, including the quirk about error-flagged preview results. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: the first states the core action, the second defines cardinality and the alternative, and the third covers effects and a dry-run tip. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the key differentiator (single vs. batch) appears immediately after the verb. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers everything an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly: what it does, that it targets one item, when to use the batch sibling, that it is idempotent, and how to preview the request safely. There is no output schema, but the description still manages to explain the dry-run error-flag behavior, and no other critical context (such as identifying the item via testStepIndex/iteration) is omitted.

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%: every parameter (including `dry_run`, `iteration`, `requestBody`, etc.) already has a detailed description. The main description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond a rephrasing of `dry_run`'s behavior in the tip, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't detract from it.

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 action and resource: 'Updates the specified Test Step Result.' It then clarifies cardinality ('targets a single item by ID') and explicitly names the sibling tool (`patchTestStepResults`) for batch operations, making the distinction from its collection-level counterpart immediate and unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use `patchTestStepResults` for the full collection or a batch, and this tool for a single item. It also provides a practical tip (set `dry_run: true` first to preview the request), which is direct guidance on how to safely invoke the tool. No ambiguity remains about when to choose this tool.

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