Polarion MCP Server

postWorkRecords

Create new Polarion work record entries for a specific work item by specifying its project ID, work item ID, and record details, with an optional dry-run preview to validate the request before submission.

Instructions

Creates a list of Work Records. 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.
`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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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/MyWorkRecordId",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "links": {
+            "properties": {
+              "self": {
+                "example": "server-host-name/application-path/projects/MyProjectId/workitems/MyWorkItemId/workrecords/MyWorkRecordId?revision=1234",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "workrecords"
+            ],
+            "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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly declares non-idempotency ('calling it again with the same input creates a duplicate'), going beyond what idempotentHint=false alone conveys by spelling out the duplicate result. It also discloses the unusual dry_run semantics — previews surface as error-flagged results whose text content must still be read — which the annotations do not cover at all. There is no contradiction between the description and the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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, each earning its place: purpose, side-effect warning, safety tip, and result-interpretation quirk. The most critical facts (creates + duplicates) are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 output schema, annotations, and 100% parameter coverage already present, the description's remaining job was the behavioral layer, and it is thorough: side effects, the preview path, and result interpretation are all disclosed. Nothing an agent needs to safely call this non-idempotent write tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so projectId, workItemId, requestBody, and dry_run basics are already documented in the schema. The description adds genuine interpretation value for dry_run, explaining that its preview is returned as an error-flagged result and should be read regardless of that flag — a nuance absent from the schema's dry_run text. The other parameters need no description-level augmentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Creates a list of Work Records,' which clearly identifies the operation and its collection nature. The resource type, Work Records, is distinct from nearby siblings such as postWorkItems and getWorkRecords, so an agent can infer the write intent without opening the schema. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or contrast to disambiguate further, so it does not fully earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The dry_run tip offers a concrete, safe invocation workflow ('preview the exact request first, without changing anything'), which is practical guidance for a non-idempotent write tool. But the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like postWorkItems or patchWorkItems, and any prerequisites are left to the schema (e.g., 'call getProjects'). Usage context is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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

Deploy Server