Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

postTestRunComments

Creates comments on a Polarion Test Run, supports dry-run validation and preview, and returns the created comment resources.

Instructions

Creates comments on one Test Run and returns the created comment resources. Requires write access to the run. Use getTestRunComments to list them or postComments for Work Item comments. Effect: creates a new resource. Repeating this call may create additional resources; it is not guaranteed idempotent. Tip: set dry_run: true first to validate the arguments and preview the exact request without sending it to Polarion. The executor returns this preview as normal text, and as structured content when the tool declares an output schema.

Input 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.
projectIdYesThe Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access.
testRunIdYesThe Test Run's ID within its project.
requestBodyYesThe Comment(s) body.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"The Polarion project ID (its URL segment, e.g. `myproject`), case-sensitive. Required to scope the request to one project. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access."
  2. Changed9 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / example
      Removed value: -"MyProjectId/MyTestRunId/MyCommentId"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "integer",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / links / properties / self / example
      Removed value: -"server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/testruns/MyTestRunId/comments/MyCommentId?revision=1234"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / links / properties / self / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "integer",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / links / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / type / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "testrun_comments"
-]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / type / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "integer",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
  3. Changed3 schema fields 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."
    • 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / testRunId / description
      Previous value: -"The Test Run ID."New value: +"The Test Run's ID within its project."
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "MyProjectId/MyTestRunId/MyCommentId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/testruns/MyTestRunId/comments/MyCommentId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "testrun_comments"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, validate and return the request that would be sent without calling Polarion.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  6. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value: it names the write-access prerequisite and concretely explains the consequence of non-idempotency ('repeating this call may create additional resources'). It also documents the dry_run preview semantics, which the annotations do not.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then follow-up usage, effect, idempotency and tip in a compact sequence. Slightly padded by the redundant 'Effect: creates a new resource' clause, but every sentence still carries information.

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 create tool with a nested request body, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, precondition, effect, idempotency and validation path. Only the shape of the request body (comment text, author, parent) and error behavior are left unaddressed, which the schema largely covers.

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% and every parameter including dry_run is documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond restating the dry_run tip already present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates comments on one Test Run') plus the return ('returns the created comment resources'), and explicitly names the read sibling getTestRunComments so it is distinguishable from the nearby patchTestRunComments / postComments tools.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (requires write access to the run), routes listing to getTestRunComments and Work Item comments to postComments, and offers a validate-first workflow via dry_run. It does not cover when to prefer patchTestRunComments over this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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