Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

postCollectionsRelationships

Create relationships for a Polarion collection, linking it to specified resources. Use dry_run to preview the request before it is sent.

Instructions

Creates the specific Relationships for the Collections. Effect: creates a new resource on each call — calling it again with the same input creates a duplicate; it is not idempotent. 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 Document(s) body.
collectionIdYesThe Collection ID.
relationshipIdYesThe relationship's name as it appears under `relationships` in the owning resource (e.g. `assignee`, `author`, `watches`, `linkedWorkItems`), not an ID of an individual link entry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationshipId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID of the specific relationship entry linking the two resources, as returned by the corresponding get-relationships call."New value: +"The relationship's name as it appears under `relationships` in the owning resource (e.g. `assignee`, `author`, `watches`, `linkedWorkItems`), not an ID of an individual link entry."
  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 / relationshipId / description
      Previous value: -"The Relationship ID."New value: +"The ID of the specific relationship entry linking the two resources, as returned by the corresponding get-relationships call."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the consequence: calling again creates a duplicate and is not idempotent. It also introduces the dry_run behavior, describing how the preview works and that it returns an error-flagged result, adding significant behavioral context beyond the minimal hints. No contradiction with 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 with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the non-idempotent behavior and the dry_run tip without repetition or filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: it explains the create semantics, non-idempotency, and provides a safe preview mechanism. However, it does not describe what a successful response looks like or how to interpret the result. Since no output schema exists, some return-format guidance might be expected, but the description is still adequate for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including detailed explanations for dry_run, projectId, and relationshipId. The description's only parameter-related addition is the tip to set dry_run, which is more of a usage suggestion than semantic clarification. Since the schema already handles parameter meanings well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Creates') and the resource ('specific Relationships for the Collections'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like patchCollectionsRelationships and deleteCollectionsRelationship by explicitly indicating creation. The effect of non-idempotency also reinforces the create semantics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implicitly indicates this is for creating new relationships, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patch or delete). It provides a dry_run tip as a usage suggestion but no when/when-not conditions. Sibling tools like postPageRelationships, postPlanRelationships, postWorkItemRelationships exist, but no comparison is made.

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