Polarion MCP Server

postProjectIcons

Creates a new icon for a specific Polarion project. Use dry_run to preview the request before sending.

Instructions

Icons are identified by order. Scope: one project (requires a project ID). To act across all projects, use postGlobalIcons 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

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	Icon meta data and file data

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."

addedInput schema / properties / projectId / description

Added 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": "default/example.gif",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/enumerations/defaulticons/example.gif",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "icons"
+            ],
+            "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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotence, but the description goes further by explaining that repeated calls with the same input create duplicates. It also discloses the dry_run preview behavior and the fact that preview results appear as error-flagged output, which is genuinely useful context.

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?

Four sentences, every one earns its place: scope, sibling alternative, non-idempotence, and dry-run guidance. The most important facts are 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?

Given the annotations, full schema coverage for parameters, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, effect, non-idempotence, and safe preview behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by emphasizing the project ID scoping requirement and explaining how dry_run previews the request, including the error-flagged result quirk, which goes slightly beyond the schema text.

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 verb (post), resource (project icons), and scope (one project, requires a project ID). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from postGlobalIcons, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: use this tool for a single project, and use postGlobalIcons instead when acting across all projects. Also gives a practical dry-run tip for safe invocation.

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

Deploy Server