Polarion MCP Server

postDocumentComments

Create comments on a Polarion document using project, space, document, and comment details. Use dry_run to preview the request before finalizing.

Instructions

Creates a list of Document 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.
`spaceId`	Yes	The Document Space ID (a folder-like grouping of documents/pages within a project). Use `_default` (no quotes) to address the project's default space.
`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.
`requestBody`	Yes	The Comment(s) body.
`documentName`	Yes	The Document name.

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 / spaceId / description

Previous value: -"The Space ID. (Use '_default' without quotes to address the default Space.)"New value: +"The Document Space ID (a folder-like grouping of documents/pages within a project). Use `_default` (no quotes) to address the project's default space."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "MyProjectId/MySpaceId/MyDocumentId/MyCommentId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/spaces/MySpaceId/documents/MyDocumentId/comments/MyCommentId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "document_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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=false, but the description adds concrete detail: 'calling it again with the same input creates a duplicate'. It also explains dry_run behavior and the error-flagged preview result, which is valuable context beyond structured annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then effect, then a practical tip. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is complex with nested objects and an output schema, but the description covers purpose, non-idempotency, and dry_run usage. It does not explain return values, but the output schema exists, so that is not required. It lacks explicit authentication or error details, but these are not critical for a post operation.

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 schema already documents all parameters including dry_run. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format, constraints, relationships). 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 states 'Creates a list of Document Comments' with a specific verb and resource, and the non-idempotency note clarifies its effect. It is clearly distinct from siblings like getDocumentComments (read), patchDocumentComment (update), and postPageComments (page-specific).

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 by stating 'Creates' and the dry_run tip for previewing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use for adding new comments; use patchDocumentComment for edits'). No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server