Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackerone-mcp

hackerone-mcp

by AxiomSec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

raw_get

Make authenticated GET requests to HackerOne v1 paths to retrieve data not covered by dedicated tools.

Instructions

Authenticated read-only GET against any HackerOne v1 path, for reads not covered by a dedicated tool. Pass a RELATIVE path (no host).

Known read endpoints: hackers/programs hackers/programs/{handle} hackers/programs/{handle}/structured_scopes hackers/programs/{handle}/weaknesses hackers/me/reports hackers/reports/{id} hackers/payments/balance hackers/payments/earnings

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "raw_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
paramsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States 'authenticated read-only GET' indicating safety. However, it doesn't detail behavior for invalid paths, rate limits, or response format. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. The list of known endpoints is useful but slightly lengthens it. Efficient overall.

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?

No output schema and missing return value description. Authentication details are implied but not explicit. Could be more complete by noting expected response shape or error handling for a raw GET tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions. The description adds value by specifying 'Pass a RELATIVE path (no host)' for path and implies params are for query parameters. Significantly compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Authenticated read-only GET against any HackerOne v1 path, for reads not covered by a dedicated tool.' It provides a specific verb (GET) and resource (HackerOne v1 path) and distinguishes from siblings by indicating it's for uncovered reads.

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?

Explicitly says 'for reads not covered by a dedicated tool' and lists known read endpoints, guiding when to use this tool. Also instructs to pass a relative path. Slightly missing explicit when-not scenarios, but context is clear.

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