Skip to main content
Glama
kimasplund

MCP Pyrefly

by kimasplund
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

check_lollipop_status

Check your lollipop collection and leaderboard position in Pyrefly's gamified type-checking system, which rewards fixing Python code errors.

Instructions

Check your lollipop collection and leaderboard position!

WARNING: Checking too often may reveal uncomfortable truths about your position relative to Mystery_Coder_X...

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/mcp_pyrefly/server.py:587-615 (handler)
    The implementation of the check_lollipop_status tool handler.
    @mcp.tool()
async def check_lollipop_status(context: Context | None = None) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """
    Check your lollipop collection and leaderboard position!

    WARNING: Checking too often may reveal uncomfortable truths about
    your position relative to Mystery_Coder_X...
    """
    # Apply decay check
    decay, decay_msg = gamification.apply_decay()

    # Get full leaderboard
    leaderboard_data = gamification.get_leaderboard(gamification.lollipops)

    # Dynamic milestone that keeps moving
    progress_to_milestone = (
        gamification.lollipops / gamification.current_milestone
    ) * 100
    milestone_bar = "█" * int(progress_to_milestone / 5) + "░" * (
        20 - int(progress_to_milestone / 5)
    )

    # Create tension about the competition
    position = leaderboard_data["user_position"]
    if position == 1:
        competitive_status = "👑 You're #1... for now. Don't get comfortable!"
    elif position == 2:
        competitive_status = f"🥈 So close! Just {leaderboard_data['gap_to_leader']} lollipops from glory!"
    elif position <= 5:

Tool Definition Quality

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the warning about 'checking too often' suggests potential rate limits or social implications, and it hints at competitive aspects ('position relative to Mystery_Coder_X'). This goes beyond basic functionality, though it lacks details on auth needs or exact behavioral traits.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a warning. Both sentences earn their place by adding value—the first states the action, and the second provides behavioral context. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the playful tone might slightly obscure clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and adds behavioral warnings, though it could benefit from more explicit usage scenarios or prerequisites to fully guide the agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable given the baseline. It implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema, so it compensates adequately.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool checks 'lollipop collection and leaderboard position,' which provides a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'lollipop collection' entails and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_code' or 'check_consistency' in terms of specific functionality or domain.

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?

The description includes a warning about checking too often, which implies a usage constraint, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_identifier' or 'list_identifiers.' No clear context or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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/kimasplund/mcp-pyrefly'

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