Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ultramock-mcp

ultramock-mcp

by sebastiankehle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote
This server has been deprecated

unofficial mcp, unmaintained.

Apply template

apply_template

Apply a template's device, camera, lighting, and effects to an existing project, altering its visual appearance.

Instructions

Apply a template's look (device, camera, lighting, effects) to an existing project.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "templateId": "<templateId>"
    },
    "name": "apply_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
templateIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info (applies look to existing project) but does not disclose whether changes are reversible, merging behavior, or required permissions. It adds some context 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?

Single sentence, 14 words, no redundancy. The core action and scope are front-loaded.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but missing usage guidelines and parameter details. It does not leverage sibling context to clarify when to use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% parameter description coverage; the description does not explain the IDs or how to obtain them. It only implicitly identifies projectId and templateId through the tool purpose, which is minimal.

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 ('apply') and resource ('template's look to an existing project'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_templates or create_project. It explains what aspects are affected (device, camera, lighting, effects).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., duplicate_project). No context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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