Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchTestStepResultAttachment

Idempotent

Updates an existing Test Step Result attachment's metadata and optionally replaces its stored file with base64 bytes while keeping the same ID. Use it to rename or re-upload an existing file.

Instructions

Updates one existing Test Step Result 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 postTestStepResultAttachments, and to read the current file use getTestStepResultAttachmentContent. 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 validate the arguments and preview the exact request without sending it to Polarion. The executor returns this preview as normal text, and as structured content when the tool declares an output schema.

Input 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. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access.
testRunIdYesThe Test Run's ID within its project.
testCaseIdYesThe Test Case's ID being referenced.
requestBodyNoAttachment metadata and file data.
attachmentIdYesThe attachment's ID, as returned by the corresponding list- or get-attachments call for this resource.
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"The Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access."
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / attachmentId / description
      Previous value: -"The Attachment ID."New 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."
    • 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."
  3. 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."
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

It goes beyond the annotations by telling the agent that 'The attachment keeps its ID' and that the file replacement is optional (metadata-only updates are possible), which the schema does not reveal. The idempotency sentence largely restates `idempotentHint: true`, and there is no mention of what happens on an ID mismatch or whether replacing content is recoverable, but nothing contradicts the declared profile.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and the scope of what can change, followed by sibling routing. The closing sentence about the executor returning preview as text and as structured content is somewhat padded and could be cut, and the dry_run tip partially duplicates the parameter's own schema description.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage: it covers what changes, what persists, alternatives, and a dry-run path. The one gap is the non-dry-run return value — the agent is told nothing about what a real successful patch returns, which matters given there is no output schema.

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, but the description earns credit by disambiguating the opaque `requestBody` string parameter into its two sub-parts (`resource` for metadata such as `title`, `content` for base64 bytes) — something the one-line schema description ('Attachment metadata and file data') does not make actionable. It does not address the seven path identifiers, though those are already documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates one existing Test Step Result attachment') and enumerates exactly what can be changed: metadata via `requestBody.resource` and the stored file via `requestBody.content`. It also names the two siblings it must not be confused with (`postTestStepResultAttachments` for creation, `getTestStepResultAttachmentContent` for reading), so an agent can place it precisely in the family.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this to rename or re-upload a file that already exists; to add a new file use postTestStepResultAttachments, and to read the current file use getTestStepResultAttachmentContent.' It also adds an operational guideline — run with `dry_run: true` first to validate — giving the agent a safe-call recipe, not just an existence condition.

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