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.

Duplicate project

duplicate_project

Create a copy of an existing mockup project, including its configuration and screen image. Use to replicate setup without starting from scratch.

Instructions

Duplicate an existing project (including its configuration and screen image).

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>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes

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?

Minimal disclosure: mentions what is duplicated (config, screen) but no details on other aspects like permissions, history, or depth of copy. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 of 11 words with no redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Simple tool (1 param, no output schema), but lacks usage guidance. With sibling tools present, description leaves agent guessing about when duplication is appropriate.

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 coverage 0% and description adds no extra meaning for the sole parameter projectId beyond its basic type. No format, validation, or examples provided.

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?

Clear verb 'duplicate' with specific resource 'existing project' and explicit scope including configuration and screen image. Distinguishes from siblings like create_project, delete_project, rename_project.

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 like create_project or apply_template. Lacks context such as prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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