UiPath MCP Server

uipath_get_process_performance

Retrieve performance analytics for a specific UiPath automation, including success rate, average execution duration, min/max times, and recent execution history.

Instructions

Get performance analytics for a specific process/automation. Returns success rate, average execution duration, min/max times, and recent execution history.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "processName": "<processName>"
    },
    "name": "uipath_get_process_performance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of recent executions to analyze (default 100)
`folderId`	No	Folder ID where the process exists
`processName`	Yes	Name of the process/release to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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.