Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

postComments

Creates comments on a specified Polarion Work Item or resource and returns the created comment data; use dry run first to validate and preview the request before sending.

Instructions

Creates comments on the specified Work Item or resource using the request body and returns the created comment resources. The target must be writable by the signed-in user. Use getComments to list comments and postDocumentComments or postPageComments for comments on those specific resource families. Effect: creates a new resource. Repeating this call may create additional resources; it is not guaranteed idempotent. 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
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 Comment(s) body.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo

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. Changed9 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / example
      Removed value: -"MyProjectId/MyWorkItemId/MyCommentId"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "integer",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / links / properties / self / example
      Removed value: -"server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId/comments/MyCommentId?revision=1234"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / links / properties / self / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "integer",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / links / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / type / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "workitem_comments"
-]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / type / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "integer",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
  3. 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."
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • 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"
+}
  5. 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"
+}
  6. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious auth prerequisite ('target must be writable by the signed-in user') and a concrete dry-run validation path with how the preview is returned. The 'repeating this call may create additional resources' sentence largely restates idempotentHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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 mutation effect and sibling routing are front-loaded, and each sentence carries information. The final sentence about text-vs-structured preview output is slightly verbose and could be folded into the dry_run tip.

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 nested-body write tool with an output schema, the description covers the auth precondition, non-idempotency, dry-run safety, and alternatives — the essentials are present. The phrase 'or resource' is mildly at odds with a requestBody enum restricted to workitem_comments, leaving a small ambiguity about supported targets.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by framing requestBody usage and by explaining what dry_run returns ('preview as normal text, and as structured content when the tool declares an output schema'), which the schema's dry_run doc does not fully cover. It does not clarify the nested requestBody structure (author, parentComment, text type), so it stays below 5.

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 ('Creates comments on the specified Work Item') plus the return ('returns the created comment resources'), and explicitly names the siblings it is not (getComments, postDocumentComments, postPageComments). 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use getComments to list, postDocumentComments/postPageComments for those resource families, and recommends dry_run:true as a first validation step. It also states the precondition (target must be writable by the signed-in user), so the when-to-use picture is complete.

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