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.

List projects

list_projects

Retrieve all your product mockup projects with their ID, name, version, and editor URL.

Instructions

List all ultramock mockup projects in your account (id, name, version, editor URL).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies a safe read operation (list all), but lacks details like no pagination, no ordering, and no mention of rate limits. While 'list all' suggests it returns all projects without side effects, it could be more explicit about read-only nature.

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 that is front-loaded with the main action and includes all essential details. No redundant words; every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward operation, the description is complete. It tells what is listed and what fields are returned, sufficient for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Input schema is empty, so no parameter details needed. The description adds value by listing returned fields (id, name, version, editor URL), which helps the agent understand output beyond what schema provides. According to guidelines, 0 params gives baseline 4; here description enhances it to 5.

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 action (List), resource (ultramock mockup projects), scope (all in account), and what is returned (id, name, version, editor URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and list_templates (different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose is clear for listing all projects, but no explicit when-not or alternatives are given. However, given sibling names, it's implicit when to use get_project for a single project. Could add 'use get_project for a specific project' but not necessary for a simple list tool.

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