Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

patchWorkItems

Updates a batch of Work Items in one Polarion project; use dry_run to validate and preview the exact 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. For the same collection across projects, use patchAllWorkItems instead. 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. Examples: {"projectId":"myproject","requestBody":{"data":[{"type":"workitems","id":"WI-123","attributes":{"status":"inprogress"}}]}}. Selection: Use patchWorkItems to update a batch within one project; use patchWorkItem for one known ID and patchAllWorkItems when the batch spans projects.

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.
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.
requestBodyYesThe Work Item(s) body.
changeTypeToNoThe Type the Workitem to change to.
workflowActionNoThe Workflow Action.

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. 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."
  3. 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"
+}
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: dry_run validates and previews the request without sending it, with the Authorization header redacted and binary payloads summarized. It does not disclose what happens on a partial batch failure or permission requirements, so it stops just short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, but the cross-project routing is stated three separate times ("To act across all projects...", "For the same collection across projects...", and the final "Selection:" sentence). Content is clear but roughly a third of the text is duplicated.

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 annotation coverage, a 100%-documented schema, and no output schema, the description supplies scope, alternatives, a dry_run safety path, and a usage example. The remaining gaps (batch partial-failure behavior, how many items are practical per call) are secondary but not trivial.

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, but the inline example clarifies the nested JSON:API requestBody shape (data array with type/id/attributes) in a way the property list alone does not. It also reiterates that projectId is required and what dry_run does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Updates a list of Work Items") and immediately scopes it to one project, which distinguishes it from patchAllWorkItems without the agent needing to inspect any schema. The batch cardinality is stated explicitly.

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?

Names both alternatives (patchWorkItem for a single known ID, patchAllWorkItems for cross-project batches) and states the exact condition that selects each. The closing "Selection" sentence removes any remaining ambiguity.

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