Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchWorkItemApproval

Idempotent

Update a single approver’s decision on a Polarion Work Item approval entry by user ID; validate and preview the request with dry_run before sending.

Instructions

Updates one approver’s decision on a Work Item approval entry. Use the approver’s user ID as the approval identifier; the user must be allowed to record the decision. Read the entry with getWorkItemApproval and use patchWorkItemApprovals only when changing multiple approvals. Cardinality: targets a single item by ID. For the full collection or a batch, use patchWorkItemApprovals 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
userIdYesThe User ID.
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. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
requestBodyYesThe Test Run(s) body.

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. 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."
  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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: the permission prerequisite ('the user must be allowed to record the decision') and the `dry_run` preview behavior including how the preview is returned. The idempotency restatement is redundant with the annotation but consistent with it.

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?

Purpose, identifier semantics and the read-first alternative are front-loaded, which is good. There is mild redundancy: the batch/collection guidance appears twice ('use `patchWorkItemApprovals` only when changing multiple approvals' and 'For the full collection or a batch...'), and the two sentences could be merged without losing meaning.

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 5-parameter mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, idempotency and dry-run preview — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that it never describes what the patch actually mutates in the approval entry (the decision/status field), which the agent must infer from the 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. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that `userId` is the approval identifier (not the caller) and by noting the authorization condition on that user. It does not, however, elaborate the nested `requestBody` shape or the settable status values, leaving those to 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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource: updates one approver's decision on a Work Item approval entry. It immediately distinguishes itself from the plural siblings by naming `patchWorkItemApprovals` and `getWorkItemApproval`, so an agent can route correctly 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool (single approver's decision, targeted by user ID) and when to use the alternative (`patchWorkItemApprovals` for multiple/batch), plus the read-first pattern via `getWorkItemApproval`. Exclusions and alternatives are both named.

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