Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

postGlobalCustomFields

Creates custom fields in the global Polarion context, applying to every project. Use it to add project-wide fields, with a dry-run option to preview the request before sending.

Instructions

Creates a list of Custom Fields in the Global context. Scope: spans every project (no project filter). To act on a single project, use postProjectCustomFields instead. 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.
requestBodyYesCustom Fields Body

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "MyProjectId/workitems/epic",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/customfields/workitems/epic",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "customfields"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals non-idempotency with concrete consequences: calling again with the same input creates a duplicate. It also explains the dry_run preview behavior and the important nuance that preview results appear as error-flagged output despite being valid previews.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, alternative tool, idempotency warning, and dry_run tip are each covered without redundancy. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create operation with a typed output schema, the description covers scope, non-idempotency, the correct sibling alternative, and the dry_run caveat. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the schema already documents requestBody and dry_run in detail. The description adds value by reinforcing the dry_run workflow and clarifying how to interpret its error-flagged preview result, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates a list of Custom Fields in the Global context.' It clearly distinguishes itself from postProjectCustomFields by stating scope spans every project with no project filter, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative postProjectCustomFields for single-project actions and explains when to use this global variant instead. It also advises using dry_run: true to preview the request, giving clear operational guidance.

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