UltraPopper
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| popper_understandA | Mechanically index the codebase into .popper/, then (on a second call with |
| popper_clarifyA | Turn a raw problem statement into a locked problem contract. First call returns a drafting prompt + relevant files; second call (with |
| popper_statusC | Report the current .popper/ knowledgebase summary, phase, and contract stats. |
| popper_hypothesizeA | Draft (call 1) then persist (call 2 with |
| popper_refuteC | Return a firewalled fan-out plan (call 1); log verdicts + decide survive/refine/exhaust (call 2 with |
| popper_implementB | Emit a one-shot implementation prompt for the surviving hypothesis and persist a solution record. |
| popper_solveB | Report the current phase and which popper_* tool to call next (model-free conductor). |
| popper_learnA | Record TDD-execution outcomes for the active contract so UltraPopper's KB learns from what actually held up under test. kind: 'held' (a refutation finding confirmed by a failing test), 'false_alarm' (a finding that did NOT reproduce), or 'missed' (a defect the tests found that refutation did not — the sharpest signal). Folded into the KB on the next popper_refute; held/missed need evidenceAnchors to ground. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 8 tools
Each tool targets a distinct phase in the workflow (understand, status, clarify, hypothesize, implement, refute, solve, learn), with no overlapping purposes. The descriptions clearly differentiate their roles.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'popper_<verb>', using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and systematic.
With 8 tools covering all major phases of the scientific problem-solving workflow, the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat or omission.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the intended workflow: from codebase understanding to problem clarification, hypothesis, implementation, refutation, orchestration, and learning. No obvious gaps are present.