Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackerone-mcp

hackerone-mcp

by AxiomSec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

count_programs

Count total programs, bounty programs, VDPs, and breakdown by submission state with a single API call. Get quick answers to 'how many' questions.

Instructions

Count programs without listing them: total, bounty programs, VDPs (offers_bounties=false), and a breakdown by submission_state. One cheap API call, tiny response — use this for 'how many ...' questions.

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": "count_programs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a tiny response and counts various categories. However, it does not clarify the behavior of the refresh parameter or whether counts are cached.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no superfluous content. Each phrase earns its place.

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?

Covers the tool's main purpose and breakdowns, but omits explanation of the refresh parameter. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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 0% (no parameter described). The sole parameter 'refresh' is not mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose unexplained. Description must compensate for low coverage but fails to do so.

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 it counts programs with specific breakdowns (total, bounty, VDP, by submission_state) and explicitly distinguishes from listing, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_programs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly advises to use for 'how many ...' questions, implying when to count rather than list. Also notes it's a cheap, small API call, guiding efficient usage.

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