Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchWorkItem

Idempotent

Update a single Polarion work item by ID, including attributes, relationships, or workflow actions. Preview changes with dry_run to avoid unintended status transitions.

Instructions

Updates the specified Work Item. Cardinality: targets a single item by ID. For the full collection or a batch, use patchWorkItems instead. Effect: not guaranteed idempotent — this call can trigger a workflow action, and re-running a workflow action from a different resulting status has real additional side effects (status change, signatures, notifications). 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.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
requestBodyYesThe Work Item body.
changeTypeToNoThe Type the Workitem to change to.
workflowActionNoThe Workflow Action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / workItemId / description
      Previous value: -"The Work Item ID."New value: +"The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads."
  2. 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"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestBody / properties / data / properties / attributes / properties / hyperlinks / items / properties / title
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns that the call is not guaranteed idempotent despite the idempotentHint annotation, explains that it can trigger workflow actions with real side effects (status change, signatures, notifications), and explains the dry_run preview behavior including the error-flagged result quirk. This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the cardinality distinction, then the side-effect warning, then the dry_run tip. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks (workflow side effects, non-idempotence), the single-vs-batch routing, and the dry_run safety mechanism. It doesn't describe the success response format, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of the dry_run guidance make this acceptable. The only minor gap is not detailing what a successful response contains, but the tool's complexity is well covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the dry_run preview behavior in detail, clarifying that workItemId is the project-scoped ID (e.g. WI-123) not the combined project/id path, and noting that projectId is case-sensitive and can be listed via getProjects. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 it updates a specified Work Item, targets a single item by ID, and explicitly contrasts with patchWorkItems for batch operations. This distinguishes it from siblings like patchWorkItems, postWorkItems, and getWorkItem without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use this tool (single item by ID) versus when to use patchWorkItems instead (full collection or batch). It also provides a concrete tip to use dry_run: true first to preview the request, which is actionable usage guidance.

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