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.

Set screen image

set_screenshot

Replace the device screen in a mockup by uploading a local image. Accepts PNG, JPG, or WebP.

Instructions

Upload a local image file to use as the screen content shown on the device in the mockup. Accepts PNG, JPG or WebP.

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>",
      "imagePath": "<imagePath>"
    },
    "name": "set_screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imagePathYesAbsolute path to a local image file (png/jpg/webp).
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks details on behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., overwriting existing screenshots), error handling (e.g., file not found), or required permissions. It only indicates the action and accepted formats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and to the point.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. However, it omits what happens after upload (e.g., immediate update, return value) and lacks behavioral context.

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 is 50% (only imagePath has a description). The tool description adds context for imagePath but does not explain projectId. It provides marginal value beyond the schema for one parameter.

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 action (upload), the resource (local image file), and the purpose (to use as screen content on the device in the mockup). It also specifies supported formats (PNG, JPG, WebP), making it distinct from sibling tools like apply_template or create_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or scenarios where it should not be used.

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