Polarion MCP Server

postExternallyLinkedWorkItems

Create externally linked work item records for a Polarion work item to establish cross-references to external systems. Use dry_run to preview the request before sending.

Instructions

Creates a list of Externally Linked Work Items. 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 Externally Linked Work Item(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/parent/hostname/MyProjectId/MyLinkedWorkItemId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId/externallylinkedworkitems/parent/hostname/MyProjectId/MyLinkedWorkItemId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "externallylinkedworkitems"
+            ],
+            "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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description concretely explains the effect: each call creates a new resource and identical input yields a duplicate. It also discloses the non-obvious trait that dry_run previews arrive as error-flagged results, so the agent must read the text content regardless — genuinely useful context the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three labeled segments (purpose, Effect, Tip) with no wasted words; the action is front-loaded, followed by the non-idempotency warning and the dry_run tip. The note about error-flagged preview output is slightly wordy but earns its place by preventing misinterpretation of tool results.

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 non-idempotent mutation with nested requestBody and a typed output schema, the description covers purpose, duplication behavior, and the safe preview workflow. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents all parameters. Only explicit alternative routing among siblings is missing, a minor gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions dry_run but adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's own detailed description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured schema carries the semantic weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a list of Externally Linked Work Items,' which clearly identifies the operation and target. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like postLinkedWorkItems or postBacklinkedWorkItems, but the 'externally linked' qualifier makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear safety tip to use dry_run: true first to preview the request without side effects, and warns that repeated calls with identical input produce duplicates. However, it never states when to choose this over the many sibling link-creation tools, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server