UiPath MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct targets (queues, jobs, robots, etc.), and getters are differentiated by resource. A few statistical tools (dashboard_summary, folder_overview, count_stats) overlap in providing counts, but their descriptions clarify intended use.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the uipath_<verb>_<resource> pattern (e.g., uipath_get_jobs, uipath_start_job, uipath_add_queue_item). The verb is consistently get for reads, with clear action verbs for mutations. No mixed conventions or ambiguous abbreviations.
Tool Count3/5
At 29 tools, the set is larger than ideal and exceeds the typical 15-25 'heavy but reasonable' range. However, the domain (UiPath Orchestrator management) is broad, and many getters reflect specific entity types, so it remains borderline rather than excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main Orchestrator entities (queues, jobs, releases, robots, machines, schedules, assets, logs, audit, licenses) with read operations and a few key actions (add queue item, start/stop job). Missing update/delete operations for some resources, but core workflows are supported.
Average 3.5/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as required permissions, return format, potential errors, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. This lack of context leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or prerequisites.
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?
The description is one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the simple tool, though it is brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description fails to explain what the dashboard summary contains beyond 'queue and job statistics' or what the return value looks like. Given the complexity of aggregating multiple data sources, the description is incomplete for an agent to anticipate the tool's output or behavior.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter folderId, which is described as 'Folder ID to get dashboard summary for.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already fully documents it, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it 'Get a comprehensive dashboard summary with queue and job statistics,' identifying the resource (dashboard summary) and the included data (queue and job statistics). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools that focus on individual queue or job stats, though it could more explicitly emphasize the aggregated nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that provide queue stats, job stats, or other specific metrics. There is no mention of preferred use cases, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get folders,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (despite the skip/limit parameters), what data is returned, or any limitations like folder hierarchy or organizational units.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence of seven words with no wasted words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is too minimal to be complete. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., an array of folder objects), but it does not. It also lacks any mention of how folders are scoped, which is significant given the many sibling tools and the complexity of UiPath Orchestrator's folder model.
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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (skip and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, no further compensation is needed.
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 clearly states the tool gets folders from UiPath Orchestrator, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many other sibling get_* tools, such as uipath_get_queue_items or uipath_get_jobs, beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools, such as uipath_get_folder_overview or other folder-related operations. It also does not mention any prerequisites or context for using folders, such as the need for folder permissions or how folders relate to other UiPath entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination (skip/limit), default limits, whether it's read-only, or what the response format is. The verb 'Get' implies read-only but nothing else is disclosed.
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 a single short sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. However, it is not structured beyond that and lacks any additional detail, so while concise, it is not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value, but it doesn't. It also fails to provide context about the tool's behavior, leaving the agent without essential information about pagination and response structure.
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 fully describes the two parameters (skip, limit) with types, defaults, and descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action: 'Get machines from UiPath Orchestrator.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other getter tools like get_robots or get_sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without any contextual clues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get robot logs' without mentioning return format, permissions, side effects, or filter semantics. This adds minimal transparency beyond the schema.
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?
The description is a single, efficiently front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the verb and resource. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what robot logs contain, how filters combine, or pagination behavior, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema fields.
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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'optional filters' summarizes that all parameters are optional but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves robot logs and supports optional filters. It distinguishes the resource (robot logs) from sibling tools like audit logs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uipath_get_audit_logs. The phrase 'with optional filters' hints at usage but offers no exclusions or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a folderId requirement, which is useful, but it fails to clarify key behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'), what happens if folderId is omitted, pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), or the structure of the returned data. The vague 'most operations' adds ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action, includes the key optional filters, and adds a critical prerequisite. There is zero waste; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list-style read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not explain the return format, mention pagination or default limit, distinguish from similar job-related tools, or clarify operational prerequisites beyond folderId. Given the presence of many sibling tools and no output schema, more context would be helpful.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'state or process name', which maps to the 'state' and 'releaseName' parameters, but adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema already provides. This is an exact baseline scenario.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves jobs from UiPath Orchestrator with optional filtering by state or process name, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like get_job_details or get_faulted_jobs by the mention of filtering, but it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('Requires folderId for most operations') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uipath_get_job_details or uipath_get_faulted_jobs. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not explain side effects, permissions required, behavior when the job is already stopped, or the distinction between soft stop and force (which is only hinted at by the 'force' parameter description in the schema).
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple control action, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context about the effects of the 'force' parameter, the need for folderId in some deployments, and the expected state changes. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete, but the schema covers parameter semantics.
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 the parameters are well-documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself provides adequate clarity for jobId, force, and folderId. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 "Stop a running job in UiPath Orchestrator" uses a specific verb (stop) and resource (running job), clearly conveying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like uipath_start_job, but the action is unambiguous and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a soft stop vs force stop is appropriate, nor does it reference the sibling uipath_start_job for context. Usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the item 'will be processed by robots', hinting at asynchronous behavior, but doesn't disclose details like whether the queue must exist, potential failure modes, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a write operation.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 5 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides very little context. It doesn't explain what 'data' should contain, how priority/reference interact, or what happens after the call. This left the agent with significant gaps for a tool with such complexity.
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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents each parameter effectively.
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 explicitly states the action ('Add a new item') and the resource ('a UiPath queue'), and adds context that the item will be processed by robots. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like uipath_get_queue_items and uipath_get_queue_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states the general purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Gets' counts but does not specify the return format, whether counts are broken down by folder, or any limitations. This leaves significant ambiguity about the output structure.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is direct, specific, and well-structured. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of purpose and entity examples. However, it is ambiguous whether 'total number' means a single aggregate or separate counts per entity, and it does not describe the exact response format, leaving some gaps.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns (counts of entities), which goes beyond the empty schema. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the tool gets total counts of Orchestrator entities, with specific examples (Processes, Assets, Queues, Schedules). It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve individual items, making the purpose reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_* tools. The description only explains what it does, not in which scenarios it should be preferred over alternatives like uipath_get_queue_items or uipath_get_jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not mention pagination, default limits, response format, or what happens when no filters are applied. The schema does include a default limit but that is not part of the tool description.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and the resource, and the mention of optional filtering conveys the core capability without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 optional parameters but no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimal: it does not describe return values, pagination behavior, or how this tool relates to other queue operations. For a list tool with significant filtering options, this is under-specified.
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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds only the generic phrase 'optional filtering by queue, status, etc.', which does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool gets queue items from UiPath Orchestrator, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_queue_stats (which is about stats) and get_jobs (which is about jobs). Though 'etc.' is vague, the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional filtering, it does not explain when to prefer this over similar tools like get_queue_stats or add_queue_item, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output composition but does not explain the scope when folderId is omitted, time range, aggregation behavior, or any implied read-only nature. The term 'overall' hints at aggregation but lacks concrete detail.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and the key output components. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stats tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a minimal but acceptable overview. However, it lacks context around default behavior (e.g., what happens when folderId is not provided) and does not fully clarify the return structure beyond counts and success rate.
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% because the only parameter (folderId) already has a descriptive comment. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither clarifies the parameter's default behavior nor its optionality impact.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('overall job statistics') with explicit scope ('counts by state and success rate'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like uipath_get_jobs (which lists individual jobs) and uipath_get_job_details (which targets one job).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uipath_get_dashboard_summary or uipath_get_count_stats. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or what 'available' means in terms of filtering or status. The schema hints at filtering by folderId and processKey, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the source system and enough detail to convey purpose without extraneous words. Every word contributes to meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of its purpose. However, it lacks context on return format, pagination, or use cases, and does not differentiate from sibling getter tools. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
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 descriptions for both parameters (folderId: 'Folder ID to filter releases', processKey: 'Filter by process key'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('available releases/processes') from a specific source ('UiPath Orchestrator'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uipath_get_jobs or uipath_get_assets, which target different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without providing context such as typical use cases, prerequisites, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the operation ('gets') and does not mention permissions, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary fluff.
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 no-parameter tool, the description adequately explains what it returns (total robots aggregated by state) and lists the states. It lacks additional context such as comparison with sibling tools or potential filtering limitations, but remains sufficient for basic usage.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description is not required to elaborate on parameter meanings, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool gets the total number of robots aggregated by state, listing specific states. It identifies a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like uipath_get_sessions or uipath_get_robots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where sibling tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Start a new job' without mentioning that this triggers execution, may consume licensing, requires permissions, or is irreversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently sized and front-loaded with the core action, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a clear purpose and full schema coverage, but as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks behavioral context such as what happens after starting (e.g., job IDs returned, asynchronous execution). It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.
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% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meanings, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly, so no compensation is needed.
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 clearly states the action ('Start a new job') and the resource ('process/release in UiPath Orchestrator'). It distinguishes from siblings like uipath_stop_job and uipath_get_jobs by specifying 'start' as the unique operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions like 'use this to execute a process, and use get_jobs to monitor results.' The description only states what the tool does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what data is returned (counts) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, error handling, or side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing explicit is mentioned, leaving a significant gap.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and concrete details. The second sentence provides a quick use case without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for an API tool description.
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?
Despite the absence of an output schema, the description lists the key return components (job counts by state, queue count, release count, robot count) and a use case, making it fairly complete for a low-complexity tool (single parameter). It could be improved by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., a summary object) or any prerequisites, but it is largely sufficient.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (folderId has a clear description: 'Folder ID to get overview for'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, merely referring to 'folder' without further detail. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a comprehensive overview of a folder' with specific elements (job counts by state, queue count, release count, robot count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_folders, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_dashboard_summary, which could also provide a broader overview. Thus it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.
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 a use case ('Useful for understanding folder health at a glance') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named. This is implied usage, not strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get' and 'Returns list') but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior beyond the optional folderId, or any constraints. It is transparent enough for a simple getter but lacks depth.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant content. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description states the return value as a list of queues with configuration, it lacks details about the structure of the returned objects, pagination, or how the optional folderId filter affects the results. Given there is no output schema, more specifics would help the agent understand what to expect.
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 single optional parameter 'folderId' is fully described in the schema, so the description does not need to add semantics. It adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool gets all queue definitions from UiPath Orchestrator and returns their configuration, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like uipath_get_queue_items (which deals with items within queues). The verb 'Get' and resource 'queue definitions' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uipath_get_queue_items or uipath_get_queue_stats, nor any scenarios or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get robots' and 'optional folder filtering,' but does not mention pagination behavior, return format, authentication needs, or confirm that the operation is purely read-only. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and schema.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple read operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for understanding its basic function but lacks details on response format, default pagination behavior, or any caveats about folder filtering. Given the simplicity and the schema's thorough parameter descriptions, a mid-range score is appropriate.
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 descriptions for all three parameters (skip, limit, folderId) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'optional folder filtering' aligns with the folderId parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states 'Get robots from UiPath Orchestrator' with a specific verb, resource, and context. It also mentions 'optional folder filtering,' which adds scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve queue items, jobs, etc.
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 the tool is used to retrieve robots from UiPath Orchestrator, and the mention of folder filtering hints at a specific use case. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get an asset value,' which is a read operation, but it does not disclose error handling, return format, permissions, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the purpose without redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple getter with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the operation and context given its simplicity; however, it could mention what value type is returned or any failure behavior, but this is not critical for this straightforward tool.
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%: both robotId and assetName have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the operation: 'Get an asset value for a robot by ID and asset name.' It specifies the verb, resource, and required context, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling uipath_get_assets by focusing on a specific robot's asset value.
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 when to use this tool (when you need a specific robot's asset value) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given for choosing this over uipath_get_assets or other related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only says 'List' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, that it may return sensitive credentials, or that results are paginated via skip/limit. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.
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?
The description is two short sentences that immediately state the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description plus schema give a basic understanding, but it lacks guidance on what happens if folderId is omitted, how pagination works, and what the return structure looks like. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
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 all three parameters (skip, limit, folderId) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, and even slightly conflicts with the pagination semantics by saying 'List all assets' while skip/limit control the result set.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all assets in a UiPath Orchestrator folder.' The verb 'List' and resource 'assets in a folder' are specific, and the second sentence explains what assets are, helping distinguish this from sibling tools like uipath_get_queue_items or uipath_get_jobs.
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 provides context by explaining that assets store configuration values and credentials, implying when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using uipath_get_robot_asset for robot-specific assets, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data and summarizes the output ('used vs total for each license type over time') and mentions the required permission ('Requires License.View permission'). However, it does not disclose side effects, return format details, or limitations, though as a read operation, this is partially mitigated by the description's read-oriented language.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause adds value: it states what is retrieved, what is shown, and a key permission requirement. No redundant or filler content exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover functionality, return behavior, and permission, which it does at a basic level. However, it lacks differentiation from closely related sibling tools (e.g., get_license_stats, get_licenses_runtime) and does not mention the optional parameters or how they influence results. This is a clear gap for an agent trying to select among similar license-related tools.
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% (both 'days' and 'tenantId' have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how 'days' affects the returned data or when 'tenantId' should be used. The schema already provides adequate parameter context.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Gets consumption licensing usage statistics (platform units)' and specifies what it shows ('used vs total for each license type over time'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_license_stats or get_licenses_runtime by mentioning 'consumption' and 'platform units.'
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 context by naming 'consumption licensing usage statistics' and mentions a required permission, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uipath_get_license_stats or uipath_get_licenses_named_user, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals what is returned (job errors, durations, failure info) but does not mention pagination, default limits, filtering behavior, or authentication requirements. It adds some value beyond the tool name but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds return details, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should cover more. It states the return content at a high level but omits usage scenarios, parameter interplay, and any behavioral caveats. While the tool is straightforward, the description leaves gaps for an agent to infer correct invocation.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions return content, not how parameters influence results.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('faulted/failed jobs') and adds distinguishing details ('with error details'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like uipath_get_jobs (which likely returns all jobs) and uipath_get_job_details (which is for a specific job).
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 phrase 'for troubleshooting automation failures' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks comparative guidance such as 'use uipath_get_jobs for all jobs' or 'use uipath_get_job_details for a single job's details.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only intent via 'Gets' and describes the output fields (machine assignments, runtimes, online status). However, it does not mention prerequisites, permissions, rate limits, or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundant content.
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 simple getter with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and output summary. It could be more complete by describing the response structure or any limitations, but it covers the essential information needed for basic use.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (robotType) with a description and enum. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating 'for a specific robot type', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Gets runtime license details for a specific robot type' and specifies the output ('Shows machine assignments, runtimes, and online status'). This distinguishes it from sibling license tools like uipath_get_licenses_named_user and uipath_get_license_stats by focusing on runtime licenses and robot-type filtering.
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 context (needed when you want runtime license details for a specific robot type) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or provide exclusions, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (success rate, duration, etc.) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not address authentication, error cases, rate limits, or how 'recent' is defined. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with the action and key output listed up front. It is concise, free of fluff, and every phrase adds value.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient: it states the purpose and return metrics. However, it does not clarify the time range of 'recent' or mention whether the metrics are aggregated over a defined period, which could be important for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, though it does align 'specific process' with processName and 'recent execution history' with limit. It does not explain folderId further.
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 clearly states 'Get performance analytics for a specific process/automation' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the metrics returned (success rate, average duration, min/max times, recent history), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on queues, jobs, or releases.
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 a clear use case (when you need performance metrics for a specific process) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't state when to use this instead of get_job_stats or get_dashboard_summary, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Get' and specifies output components, but does not mention prerequisites, error behavior, or any side effects.
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?
One sentence with no waste, directly front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 simple get-stats tool, the description covers the main purpose and output highlights. It could be more explicit about the return shape, but given the schema covers parameters, it's sufficiently complete. No output schema means some return details would help, but the core is clear.
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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), and the description does not add extra meaning about how to use folderId or queueName beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves statistics for a named queue, specifying the nature of the stats (item counts by status, success rate). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_queue_items which list individual items.
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 this is for aggregate queue statistics but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_queue_items or get_job_stats. No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description does not mislead. However, it does not disclose details like whether the operation is safe, what the response contains, or any potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero wasted text; every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes, but it does not. It also does not clarify the role of the optional folderId parameter. The description is adequate for a basic get-by-ID tool but leaves gaps about the response shape and parameter interplay, so a middle score is suitable.
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 the schema already documents both jobId and folderId. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with jobId, but it adds no additional nuance beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is warranted because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'job', and the scope 'by its ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like uipath_get_jobs (which likely lists jobs) and uipath_get_job_stats (which provides aggregated statistics), making it highly specific.
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 provides clear context: use when you have a specific job ID and need detailed information about that job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by its ID' phrase implies a targeted lookup as opposed to listing operations, which is adequate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation with 'Get' and describes the log content as 'who did what and when,' but it does not disclose pagination behavior, required permissions, or error handling. Some transparency is present but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant words. The purpose and value are stated directly and efficiently.
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 simple read-only tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description adequately covers purpose and data nature ('tracks who did what and when'). It doesn't mention return format details, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the implied log entry fields. Missing notes on default pagination are covered by the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only high-level mapping ('who did what and when' roughly maps to userName/action/startTime/endTime) without providing additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states 'Get audit log entries from UiPath Orchestrator' with a specific verb and resource, and the mention of compliance/debugging further clarifies its distinct role. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_jobs or get_queue_items.
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 provides a clear context by saying it is 'useful for compliance and debugging,' which signals appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (user assignments, login dates, machine associations) and implies a read-only operation via 'Gets', but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential limitations, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key output content. There is no redundant wording, and each sentence provides useful information.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what it does and what information to expect. It does not mention response structure or any prerequisites, but these are not essential given the low complexity and the clarity of the purpose.
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 schema already defines the only parameter (robotType) with an enum and a description 'Type of robot to filter named-user licenses by'. The tool description merely restates that it targets a specific robot type, adding no additional context beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.
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 clearly states it retrieves named-user license details, with a specific verb ('Gets'), a specific resource ('named-user license details'), and a filtering criterion ('for a specific robot type'). It also lists what information is shown (user assignments, login dates, machine associations), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like uipath_get_licenses_runtime.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need named-user license details filtered by robot type. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it (e.g., for runtime licenses). The distinction is implicit from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'Shows'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination details, authentication requirements, or response format specifics.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds valuable details about what is shown, making it highly concise.
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 simple read/list tool, the description is reasonably complete. It states what information is returned (cron expressions, next execution times), complements the schema, and requires no complex behavioral explanation. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention of list/pagination behavior, but the schema covers skip/limit.
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 all four parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond the general purpose, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('process schedules/triggers from UiPath Orchestrator'), making its purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with queue items, jobs, releases, etc.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for viewing automation schedule information, including cron expressions and next run times. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool lists active sessions and their states, including Available, Busy, and Disconnected. This goes beyond a plain 'get sessions' and informs the user about the included states, though it does not elaborate on pagination or auth requirements.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, all parameters optional) and the detailed schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the domain and the output's meaning (robot states). It does not mention pagination, but the skip and limit parameters already cover that indirectly.
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 parameters are well described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, but it does align the 'state' filter with the states listed in the description, reinforcing the semantics. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving active robot sessions from UiPath Orchestrator and showing connected robots with their current state. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_robots or get_machines by focusing on sessions and runtime states.
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 see which robots are connected and their state), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important prerequisite (License.View permission) and adds temporal context ('over time'). It could mention response structure or pagination, but for a simple read-only stats tool, the disclosed traits are valuable and go beyond a tautological getter.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and including the permission requirement without any filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context: what it gets, the permission needed, and the data shape ('robot counts by type over time'). It is slightly weaker in explaining return formatting, but that is not critical given the straightforward read-only nature.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with adequate descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., how 'days' interacts with 'over time'), but it doesn't need to since the schema already explains them sufficiently.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Gets traditional licensing usage statistics') and adds a concrete detail ('Shows robot counts by type over time') that makes its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like uipath_get_consumption_license_stats via the 'traditional' qualifier.
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 clearly indicates the permission required and implies that it targets traditional licensing, giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![uipath_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DanielaRosenn/uipath_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DanielaRosenn/uipath_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![uipath_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DanielaRosenn/uipath_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DanielaRosenn/uipath_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DanielaRosenn/uipath_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server