Polarion MCP Server

postProjectTestParameterDefinitions

Creates test parameter definitions for a Polarion project. Use dry_run to preview the exact API request before applying changes.

Instructions

Creates a list of Test Parameter Definitions for the specified Project. 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 Test Parameter Definition(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/MyTestParamDefinition",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/testparameterdefinitions/MyTestParamDefinition",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "testparameter_definitions"
+            ],
+            "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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating non-idempotency: calling it again with the same input creates a duplicate. It also thoroughly explains the dry_run behavior, including redacted authorization headers, binary summarization, no changes, and the error-flagged preview result, which is valuable for an agent.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by the critical side-effect warning and the dry_run tip. Every sentence adds value, and the error-flagged preview caveat is placed where it will be seen.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the essential invocation concerns: what it creates, that it is non-idempotent, safe preview via dry_run, and how the preview result should be interpreted. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden.

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 the input schema already fully documents projectId, requestBody, and dry_run. The description adds the dry_run workflow context but does not need to restate parameter meanings; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Creates a list of Test Parameter Definitions' for a specified Project), with a concrete resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like postTestRunParameterDefinitions or getProjectTestParameterDefinitions, but the verb and resource are 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 gives clear context: use this to create Project-level Test Parameter Definitions, and use dry_run first to preview. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5, but the provided usage direction is actionable.

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

Deploy Server