ultramock-mcp

This server has been deprecated

unofficial mcp, unmaintained.

Get project

get_project

Retrieve a project's full configuration: current dial values for camera, scene, effects, device, screen image status, and editor URL for final export.

Instructions

Get one project's full configuration: current dial values (camera, scene, effects, device), whether a screen image is set, and the editor URL to open for the final visual export.

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_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project id (e.g. from list_projects).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the return values (dial values, screen image, editor URL), making it clear this is a read operation. Could be more explicit about read-only nature but still good.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient and clear.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists what is returned. Could mention error handling but overall sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single parameter projectId is described in the schema as 'e.g. from list_projects', which adds helpful context beyond the name. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds marginal value but is useful.

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 that the tool gets one project's full configuration, listing specific components like dial values, screen image status, and editor URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or get_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 use when needing full project configuration but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_editor_url for a subset. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server