Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polarion MCP Server

Polarion MCP Server

by phillipboesger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

updateAvatar

Replaces a specified user's avatar image with supplied image content. Requires profile update permission; use dry_run to validate arguments and preview the exact request before sending it.

Instructions

Replaces one user avatar image using the supplied image content. Images (PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP) come back as image content, UTF-8 text files as text, and any other file (PDF, Office, ZIP) as an embedded base64 resource; files over 20 MB are refused. The request changes the stored avatar for the specified user and requires permission to update that profile. Use getAvatar to retrieve the current image; use patchUser for profile fields such as name or email. 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 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

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the 20 MB size limit, the required profile-update permission, content-type handling, and an explicit non-idempotency warning consistent with idempotentHint=false. Deduction: the sentence about images coming back as image content and PDFs as embedded base64 resources reads as generic content-negotiation boilerplate for an upload tool and is confusing rather than clarifying about what this call actually returns, and there is no mention of whether the previous avatar is overwritten or retained.

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?

Purpose and alternatives are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place (limits, permissions, idempotency). The multi-clause content-type sentence is the one piece of ballast that could be cut or rewritten without losing meaning.

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 permissed mutation with no output schema, the description covers size limits, auth requirements, idempotency uncertainty, siblings, and a dry-run preview path — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is ambiguity about what the preview/content-format text actually implies for the return value and whether the prior avatar survives.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (userId, dry_run, requestBody) are already documented. The description repeats the `dry_run` guidance but adds no format, encoding, or size constraints for `requestBody` beyond the 20 MB ceiling. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Replaces one user avatar image using the supplied image content") and immediately names the sibling it is not (`getAvatar` for retrieval, `patchUser` for profile fields). An agent can distinguish this from the dozens of patch/post siblings without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: use `getAvatar` to retrieve the current image, `patchUser` for name/email, and `dry_run: true` to validate first. That is when-to-use plus named alternatives plus a recommended first step, with no inference required.

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