uipath-orchestrator-mcp

get_asset

Retrieve a specific asset by name from a specified folder in UiPath Orchestrator to access its stored value.

Instructions

Get a specific asset by name from a folder.

Args: folder_name: The display name of the folder. asset_name: The name of the asset to retrieve.

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": {
      "folder_name": "<folder_name>",
      "asset_name": "<asset_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_name`	Yes
`folder_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states only the basic action and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, side effects, permissions needed, or behavior when the asset is not found. Lack of such disclosure leaves the agent without critical 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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by an organized Args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no irrelevant 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the description clearly explains inputs and purpose. However, it does not address error conditions or operational context (such as whether the asset is searchable by exact name), but for a simple get operation with two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has no descriptions for the parameters, but the description's Args section adds meaning by stating folder_name is the display name and asset_name is the name of the asset to retrieve. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not include additional constraints or examples.

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 a specific asset by name from a folder. It uses the verb 'Get' and names the resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tool list_assets by focusing on a single asset rather than listing.

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 it should be used when fetching a specific asset by name, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_assets or mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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