Polarion MCP Server

postWorkItemApprovals

Adds approval entries for specified approver user IDs to a single Work Item, enabling approval tracking; requires permission to configure approvals and supports dry_run validation.

Instructions

Adds approval entries for users on one Work Item. Provide approver user IDs in the request body; the signed-in user must have permission to configure approvals. Use getWorkItemApprovals to inspect existing entries and patchWorkItemApproval to record a decision. 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

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. If the ID is unknown, ask the user; getProjects lists IDs only with global read access.
`workItemId`	Yes	The Work Item's ID within its project (e.g. `WI-123`), not the combined `project/id` path used in some link payloads.
`requestBody`	Yes	The Linked Work Item(s) body.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.4Oct 29, 2026

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."

Changed9 schema fields changedv1.3.1Oct 22, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / example
```
Removed value: -"MyProjectId/MyWorkItemId/MyUserId"
```

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/workitems/MyWorkItemId/approvals/MyUserId?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: -[
-  "workitem_approvals"
-]
```

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"
+]

Changed3 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."

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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "example": "MyProjectId/MyWorkItemId/MyUserId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId/approvals/MyUserId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "workitem_approvals"
+            ],
+            "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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: a permission prerequisite ('signed-in user must have permission to configure approvals'), the non-idempotent duplicate-creation behavior, and how dry_run output is surfaced. The idempotency point partly restates idempotentHint=false, but it explains the consequence (extra resources created), which the boolean alone does 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 action and the routing advice, then the effect/idempotency note. A couple of sentences (the executor/structured-content explanation) are somewhat incidental but still earn their place as operational guidance.

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?

For a nested-payload mutation with an output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: permissions, duplicate-creation risk, sibling routing, and a safe validation path. Nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.

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 that approver user IDs belong in the request body and frames dry_run as an argument validator/previewer rather than just a flag. That is modest but genuine value over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds approval entries for users on one Work Item') and positions itself relative to named siblings getWorkItemApprovals and patchWorkItemApproval. An agent can distinguish it from the plural/decision tools 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?

Explicitly names the two alternatives and their roles: getWorkItemApprovals to inspect existing entries, patchWorkItemApproval to record a decision. It also recommends a dry_run-first workflow, giving the agent a concrete operational sequence.

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

Deploy Server