Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackerone-mcp

hackerone-mcp

by AxiomSec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rank_programs

Rank accessible HackerOne programs by bounty, scope breadth, and severity to identify top targets. Use a limit parameter for faster analysis on large lists.

Instructions

Rank your programs by attractiveness (bounties, scope breadth, severity).

Scans every program you can access, which on a cold cache means one API call per program and can be slow/rate-limited. Pass limit (e.g. 50) to rank only the first N programs for a quick result.

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": "rank_programs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
refreshNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans every program (one API call per program) and can be slow/rate-limited, which is critical behavioral context. Does not mention any side effects or return format.

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?

Very concise: two sentences in first paragraph for purpose, two sentences for behavior and parameter guidance. No redundant information, front-loaded with key action.

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 purpose, performance, and one parameter. Lacks explanation of the 'refresh' parameter and does not describe the output format. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is still partially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds value for the 'limit' parameter (explains its effect on speed and scope) but does not explain the 'refresh' parameter, leaving it ambiguous.

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 tool ranks programs by attractiveness with explicit criteria (bounties, scope breadth, severity), distinguishing it from siblings like list_programs or filter_programs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides advice on when to use the tool (ranking) and performance considerations (slow on cold cache, suggests using limit for quick results). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context implies alternatives.

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