Polarion MCP Server

postWorkItems

Create new work items in Polarion by sending a list of item definitions. Use dry-run to preview the request before it is submitted.

Instructions

Creates a list of Work Items. 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 Work Item(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/MyWorkItemId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "portal": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/polarion/redirect/project/MyProjectId/workitem?id=MyWorkItemId&revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "workitems"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / requestBody / properties / data / items / properties / attributes / properties / hyperlinks / items / properties / title
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv1.0.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that repeated calls create duplicates, that dry_run changes nothing, and that the dry_run preview appears as an error-flagged result despite being informational. These details are not present in the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints and give the agent essential safe-calling behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose+non-idempotence, dry_run preview advice, and the error-flag caveat. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and no words are wasted.

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 large nested request body and an output schema, the description covers the critical operational facts: what it does, non-idempotence, and how to safely preview. It doesn't address auth requirements or rate limits, but those are not needed for basic correct invocation given the schema's completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little new param-level meaning. The dry_run tip reinforces the schema's own description, but doesn't materially extend the semantics of projectId or requestBody.

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 opens with 'Creates a list of Work Items,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like patchWorkItems, deleteWorkItems, and getWorkItems. It also provides the key non-idempotence effect, so an agent knows exactly what action this tool performs.

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 operational context: it creates new resources, is non-idempotent, and recommends a dry_run preview first. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the create-vs-modify contrast with nearby tools is implicit in the wording.

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

Deploy Server