Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
devuniverse-mcp

devuniverse-mcp

by joeshwoa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Initialize a DevUniverse project

init_dev_universe

Generates production-grade software projects by convening 27 senior personas to debate requirements, vote on stack, synthesize design, produce scaffold, wireframes, and compliance audit.

Instructions

Convene the 27-senior virtual agency for a new project: parse requirements, debate and vote the stack (Supabase/Firebase/Node, Riverpod/Bloc, spatial 3D core, mesh renderer, offline layer…), synthesize a design language, generate the full scaffold (Flutter app, backend, RLS migrations, Dockerfiles, CI, Terms/Privacy docs), cross-examine every artifact, compile Figma-ready wireframes, run the compliance audit, and start the asset watcher. Everything lands under projects// with the complete meeting transcript.

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": {
      "project_type": "<project_type>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "init_dev_universe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesPlain-language brief. Keywords steer the debate: 3d, offline, chat, payments, multi-tenant, gdpr…
project_typeYesKind of product to build (flutter_spatial_app enables the deep-scroll 3D canvas).
use_omnicinemaNoRoute the media pipeline through the OmniCinema companion (detected/linked automatically).
style_preferencesNoManual design preferences blended by the synthesis engine, e.g. ["glassmorphism", "dark", "luxury"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: parsing, debating, voting, generating scaffold, cross-examining, compiling wireframes, running compliance audit, and starting asset watcher. It also states the output location (projects/<slug>/) and that a meeting transcript is stored. However, it does not mention potential side effects or persistence behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single long sentence (over 100 words) summarizing many actions. While it front-loads the core purpose, it is not concise and could benefit from structured bullets or clearer separation of key points. Every sentence earns its place but readability suffers.

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?

No output schema is provided and the description does not explain the return value of the tool (e.g., JSON response, slug, status). It only mentions that artifacts land on disk. Given the tool's high complexity and multiple generated outputs, this omission leaves the agent without essential information about what the tool returns.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining that keywords in 'description' steer the debate and that 'project_type' values like 'flutter_spatial_app' enable specific features. However, it does not systematically enhance each parameter's meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Convene the 27-senior virtual agency for a new project' and clearly states the tool initializes a DevUniverse project. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_compliance or generate_spatial_module by describing an all-encompassing initialization process.

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 starting new projects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like get_agency_roster or sync_figma. The purpose is implied but not formally clarified.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools