uipath-orchestrator-mcp

list_assets

Lists all assets in a specified UiPath Orchestrator folder. Provide the folder name to get the list.

Instructions

List all assets in a folder.

Args: folder_name: The display name of the folder.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.5/5.0

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 disclosure. It only states 'list' (implying read-only) but does not mention recursion depth, ordering, pagination, error behavior if the folder is missing, or whether asset details are complete. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, direct sentences with the parameter inline in an 'Args' block. Every word earns its place, and no redundant information is included.

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 output schema presumably explains return values, so the description does not need to cover them. Yet for a tool with no annotations and several siblings, the description lacks context about when to use this tool versus listing folders or getting a single asset. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and single sentence.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'folder_name' is the 'display name' rather than an ID, which adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain how to obtain the display name or confirm the folder exists, leaving room for more detail.

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 'List all assets in a folder' with a specific verb, resource (assets), and scope (a folder). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_asset' (single asset) and 'list_folders' (folders instead of assets).

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 for when you need all assets within a specified folder, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'get_asset' or 'list_folders'. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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