Retrieve recent public hacktivity for a bug bounty program using its slug. View disclosed reports and activity when hacktivity is enabled.
Consulte l'activité publique récente d'un programme lorsque sa hacktivity est activée.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the activity is public and recent, and that availability depends on hacktivity being enabled—valuable context beyond the annotations. This helps the agent anticipate the scope of data and potential empty results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and its condition. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse to fully support calling the tool. It does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, or what happens when hacktivity is disabled. With three parameters and zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about the parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and slug, page, and page_size are only defined by their schema constraints. The description fails to explain that slug identifies the program or how pagination works, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to consult the recent public activity of a program, with the condition that hacktivity is enabled. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_program (which returns program details) or get_report_activity (which tracks report changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage condition (hacktivity enabled) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions. It provides no contrast with siblings like get_program or get_report_activity, leaving usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.