Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchTestStepResults

Idempotent

Update multiple test step results in a Polarion test run by specifying project, test run, test case, iteration, and request body. Preview the exact API request with dry_run before applying changes, ensuring safe batch updates.

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 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.
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description builds on them by explaining the idempotency consequence ('same end state, with no additional side effects'), the collection/batch cardinality, and a genuinely non-obvious quirk: the dry_run preview surfaces as an error-flagged result and must be read from the text content. It could also state what 'full collection' precisely covers, but it does not contradict 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Four front-loaded sentences: purpose and cardinality first, sibling routing second, then behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place; the final sentence on the error-flagged preview is dense but valuable, and the idempotency sentence slightly duplicates the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

For a 7-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers routing, cardinality, idempotency, and a safe dry_run path. Its main gap is silence about the normal response format or partial-failure behavior for batch payloads, which is more important precisely because no output schema exists to document the return value.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents dry_run (including Authorization header redaction and byte-length summarization) as well as the four ID parameters and the requestBody structure. The description's dry_run mention reinforces a usage tip but does not add new parameter meaning beyond 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?

The description opens with 'Updates a list of Test Step Results', naming a specific verb, resource, and cardinality ('targets the full collection or a batch'). It explicitly differentiates from the singular sibling: 'For a single item by ID, use patchTestStepResult instead', so an agent can distinguish them without inspecting either schema.

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 provides an explicit routing rule with its condition — single item by ID → patchTestStepResult — which fully disambiguates the plural/singular pair. It also adds a concrete workflow recommendation: set dry_run: true to preview the exact request Polarion would receive before changing anything.

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