Polarion MCP Server

postComments

Create work item comments in Polarion to capture feedback or discussion. Set dry_run to preview the exact request and prevent duplicate submissions.

Instructions

Creates a list of Work Item Comments. 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

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	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.
`projectId`	Yes	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.
`workItemId`	Yes	The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
`requestBody`	Yes	The Comment(s) body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0Sep 17, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "MyProjectId/MyWorkItemId/MyCommentId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId/comments/MyCommentId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "workitem_comments"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dry_run

Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, validate and return the request that would be sent without calling Polarion.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by spelling out the concrete consequence of non-idempotency: calling it again with the same input creates a duplicate. It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior and warns that the preview is returned as an error-flagged result, which is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the most decision-relevant behaviors: non-idempotency and the dry_run preview caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the nested requestBody and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the create effect, duplicate risk, and how to safely preview. The only missing piece is explicit routing guidance among sibling comment tools, but that is already partially addressed by naming the work-item scope in the first sentence.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds only a usage tip about dry_run and does not materially enrich the meaning of projectId, workItemId, or requestBody beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Creates a list of Work Item Comments.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling comment tools like postDocumentComments or postPageComments, and the resource is named explicitly rather than inferred from the tool name.

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 implies usage is for creating comments on work items, and it gives a practical tip to use dry_run first. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like postDocumentComments or postTestRunComments, and it provides no when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server