Skip to main content
Glama

popper_refute

Execute a two-phase refutation loop: first, receive a firewalled fan-out plan; then, log probe verdicts to decide if the design survives, needs refinement, or is exhausted.

Instructions

Return a firewalled fan-out plan (call 1); log verdicts + decide survive/refine/exhaust (call 2 with verdicts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoReasoning depth; ultra is a Phase D capability.
verdictsNoProbe verdicts to log; omit on the first call to get the plan.
pairVerdictsNoUltraPopper: interacting-pair verdicts from the pair-probe round; a fatal pair adds a conflict edge. Omit if no pair probes were dispatched.
resolvedDefectsNoUltraPopper: defects a probe surfaced that you RESOLVED by refining the design (fragment survives). Recorded to the KB (anchored) so the next session gets them as crossSessionKb ammunition — the loop learns from its own work. Include one per fixed defect, with evidenceAnchors on the touched files.
reverificationsNoAnswers to the plan's reverifyProbes: for each stale KB pattern, whether the flaw still applies (stillValid); include perAnchor for multi-file patterns so fixed files are dropped.
fragmentVerdictsNoUltraPopper: per-fragment refutation verdicts. Tag `category` (so fatals promote to the KB and refutation coverage is measured) and set `reproduced` (a fatal prunes only if not explicitly false — an unreproduced hunch is recorded, not acted on). Omit for light mode or the ultra plan call.
compositeVerdictsNoUltraPopper: composite (N-way) verdicts from the composite-probe round; a fatal composite forbids that exact combination and any superset. Omit if no composite probes were dispatched.
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the two-call protocol and decision outcomes (survive/refine/exhaust) beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It is moderately transparent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but uses jargon and parenthetical notation that may hinder clarity. It could be more accessible while maintaining brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, two-call process), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned plan looks like, how to interpret decision outcomes, or what happens on errors. No output schema exists to compensate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the tool-level description adds little extra meaning. The mention of 'verdicts' as the key parameter for the second call is already clear from the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool returns a firewalled fan-out plan on first call and logs verdicts with decision on second call. It is specific about verb+resource but uses jargon ('firewalled fan-out plan') that may be unclear to an agent. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., popper_understand or popper_hypothesize). The description only outlines the two-call procedure without context on when it's appropriate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pranaav003/ultrapopper'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server