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.

Get editor URL

get_editor_url

Retrieve the editor URL to view a live 3D mockup and export images or videos directly in the browser.

Instructions

Get the ultramock editor URL for a project. Open it in a browser to see the live 3D mockup and export the final image or video (rendering happens in the browser).

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": "get_editor_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description notes that rendering happens in the browser, which is helpful, but lacks detail on side effects, persistence, or authentication needs.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every part adds value, clearly and efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage, though the return format (URL) is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and only one parameter (projectId), the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It fails to explain the expected format or source of projectId.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'editor URL for a project', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project by focusing on the live editor URL.

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 via 'Open it in a browser', but does not specify when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_project) or provide exclusions.

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