Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

postTestSteps

Creates test steps for a Polarion work item. Use dry_run to preview the request first and avoid unintended duplicates.

Instructions

Creates a list of Test Steps. 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
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; call getProjects to list valid IDs.
workItemIdYesThe Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
requestBodyYesThe Test Step(s) body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 / workItemId / description
      Previous value: -"The Work Item ID."New value: +"The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "data": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "properties": {
      +          "id": {
      +            "example": "MyProjectId/MyWorkItemId/MyTestStepIndex",
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "links": {
      +            "properties": {
      +              "self": {
      +                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId/teststeps/MyTestStepIndex?revision=1234",
      +                "type": "string"
      +              }
      +            },
      +            "type": "object"
      +          },
      +          "type": {
      +            "enum": [
      +              "teststeps"
      +            ],
      +            "type": "string"
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. 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"
      +}
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses non-idempotence in concrete terms: each call creates a new resource and duplicate inputs produce duplicates. It also explains the dry_run preview's error-flagged output and instructs to read text content regardless, going well 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the side effect, then the preview tip. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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?

The description plus schema covers required arguments, non-idempotent side effects, and the unusual preview error-flag behavior. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values is acceptable.

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 described in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. The dry_run tip adds usage context but no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('a list of Test Steps'), so an agent knows exactly what the operation does. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get/patch/delete test-step tools by action and resource.

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 an explicit safe-invocation rule: set dry_run: true first to preview the request before actually creating anything. It stops short of naming alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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