Polarion MCP Server

postLicenseSlots

Creates new group license slots by sending a request to Polarion, with optional dry-run validation to preview the exact API call before committing changes.

Instructions

Creates a list of group License Slots. (Not supported by cloud-based Polarion X.). 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
`typeId`	Yes
`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.
`requestBody`	Yes	License Slots body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field 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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "LicenseType/ModelType/GroupId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/license/types/LicenseType/slots/ModelType/GroupId",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "license_slots"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotency (idempotentHint: false), but the description explicitly explains the consequence of calling again with the same input (creates a duplicate). It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior and the error-flagged result for previews, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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 description is reasonably concise, with the core purpose front-loaded. The dry_run explanation is somewhat lengthy but contains important operational detail. Overall structure is clear and efficient, with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers key behavioral aspects like non-idempotency and dry_run, and the output schema covers return values. However, it does not explain the purpose of the required typeId parameter, nor any prerequisites or authentication context. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a noticeable gap, but not severe.

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 coverage is 67% with dry_run and requestBody described in the schema. The description does not add meaning for typeId, which remains undocumented. While the dry_run tip references the parameter, it does not elaborate on its semantics beyond the schema. Thus the description adds marginal value over the schema and does not fully compensate for the missing typeId coverage.

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 clearly states the tool creates a list of group License Slots, a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like getLicenseSlots and deleteLicenseSlots by focusing on creation, and even notes a cloud limitation, making its 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when creating license slots) and provides a practical tip to use dry_run first for preview. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like patchLicenseAssignments, but the purpose and the dry_run workflow give sufficient usage guidance. The cloud-based limitation is also a clear exclusion.

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

Deploy Server