Polarion MCP Server

postPlans

Create new plans in a Polarion project. Validate requests with dry-run to preview the exact payload before sending, avoiding duplicate or unintended resource creation.

Instructions

Creates a list of Plans. 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.
`requestBody`	Yes	The Plan(s) body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "MyProjectId/MyPlanId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "portal": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/polarion/redirect/project/MyProjectId/plan?id=MyPlanId&revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/plans/MyPlanId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "plans"
+            ],
+            "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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly warns that calls are not idempotent and that identical input creates duplicates, which is more concrete than the idempotentHint annotation. It also discloses that dry_run output will be error-flagged because it is not real tool output, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose and core effect before the dry-run tip. The third sentence is slightly dense but earns its place by explaining the error-flag nuance.

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 state-changing collection creation tool with a rich nested schema and output schema, the description adequately covers the most important runtime behaviors: duplication, non-idempotency, and safe preview. It could add explicit guidance about required fields, but the schema already provides those details.

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?

All parameters are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. It adds only the dry_run preview tip, which reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema's parameter explanation.

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?

Description begins with 'Creates a list of Plans', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from read/delete/update siblings like getPlans, deletePlans, and patchPlan. It further clarifies the effect by noting each call creates a new resource.

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 create intent is clear, and the dry_run tip offers a safe preview workflow, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server