Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchWorkItems

Idempotent

Batch-updates multiple work items within a single Polarion project, supporting attribute changes, workflow actions, and dry-run validation to preview the request before applying changes.

Instructions

Updates a list of Work Items. Scope: one project (requires a project ID). To act across all projects, use patchAllWorkItems instead. Cardinality: targets the full collection or a batch. For a single item by ID, use patchWorkItem 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.
requestBodyYesThe Work Item(s) body.
changeTypeToNoThe Type the Workitem to change to.
workflowActionNoThe Workflow Action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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."
  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 / items / properties / attributes / properties / hyperlinks / items / properties / title
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'not guaranteed idempotent' and warns of side effects from re-running workflow actions, which is valuable. However, the annotation declares idempotentHint: true, directly contradicting this. Per rules, a contradiction forces a score of 1 and flags annotation_contradiction.

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?

The description is well-organized and front-loaded: purpose first, then scope, cardinality, effect, and tip. It is somewhat verbose but each section earns its place given the tool's complexity. No fluff, but could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Covers scope, alternatives, side effects, and the dry_run preview. It lacks a mention of return format, but no output schema exists and the dry_run explanation compensates. The idempotency contradiction aside, the description is complete for agent guidance.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including dry_run behavior and projectId guidance. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Clearly states 'Updates a list of Work Items' and differentiates from siblings by scope (one project) and cardinality (collection vs single item). Explicitly names patchAllWorkItems and patchWorkItem as alternatives, so an agent can distinguish them without opening 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?

Provides explicit routing: 'To act across all projects, use patchAllWorkItems instead' and 'For a single item by ID, use patchWorkItem instead.' Also notes the project ID requirement. No ambiguity about when to pick this tool.

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