Skip to main content
Glama
phillipboesger

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

updateAvatar

Changes a Polarion user's profile picture by sending avatar file data to the Polarion API. Use dry_run to preview the request before applying it.

Instructions

Updates the specified User Avatar. Effect: triggers a server-side action rather than a plain resource creation — whether repeating it is safe, a no-op, or rejected depends on the specific action; treat it as not guaranteed 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
userIdYesThe User ID.
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.
requestBodyNoAvatar file data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint false and readOnlyHint false; the description adds context that this triggers a server-side action and that repetition may be safe, a no-op, or rejected. It also explains the dry_run preview behavior and the error-flag caveat, going beyond the schema. This aligns with annotations and adds practical operational detail.

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?

The description is relatively short, leading with the core purpose. The second sentence is dense and the third is a lengthy tip, but each sentence earns its place by conveying non-obvious idempotency and dry_run behavior. It could be tightened, but it is not bloated.

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 mutation tool without output schema, the description explains key behavioral caveats (non-idempotency) and a safe preview mechanism. It does not list return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Combined with full parameter schemas and helpful annotations, it gives an agent enough to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including dry_run's full semantics. The description simply repeats the dry_run tip without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 applies; no extra parameter insights are provided.

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 states 'Updates the specified User Avatar' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like getAvatar (retrieve) and patchUser (generic user update). No ambiguity about what entity is affected.

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 description implies usage (to update a user's avatar) but never explicitly compares to alternatives such as getAvatar or patchUser. It offers a dry_run tip, which is guidance on how to invoke, not when to choose this over siblings. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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