Skip to main content
Glama

patchTestStepResults

Idempotent

Updates a batch of Test Step Results in a Polarion test run, enabling bulk result and comment changes.

Instructions

Updates a list of Test Step Results. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use patchTestStepResult 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 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.
requestBodyYesThe Test Step(s) body.
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. 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."
  3. 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"
      +}
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint; the description reinforces idempotency with an end-state definition and, more valuably, discloses the dry_run preview contract (response returned as normal text, and as structured content when an output schema is declared). It does not state what happens to member items omitted from a batch, nor any auth requirements, which matters for open-world mutation.

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?

Scope and sibling alternative are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by effect and a dry-run tip in priority order. No sentence repeats a preceding one; even the closing note on structured preview carries information.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with a nested array body and no output schema, the definition covers routing and dry-run validation but leaves the collection semantics ambiguous (does a partial batch replace or merge with existing results?) and says nothing about the required id/type/attributes envelope in the request body.

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%, so every path and nested field is already documented, including `dry_run`, `iteration`, and the cross-project `testCaseProjectId`. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that; the `requestBody` structure is explained only as 'The Test Step(s) body.' Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Updates a list of Test Step Results') and immediately disambiguates scope ('targets the full collection or a batch'), then names the single-item sibling `patchTestStepResult`. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling and from `postTestStepResults` without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For a single item by ID, use `patchTestStepResult` instead,' and gives a concrete recommended workflow ('set `dry_run: true` first to validate'). It never clarifies update-vs-create against the sibling `postTestStepResults`, so the create case is left to inference.

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