Retrieve all bug bounty programs accessible to your authenticated hunter account, including private programs. Use this to identify active scopes and targets you can work on.
Liste les programmes auxquels le hunter connecté possède explicitement un accès, y compris les programmes privés.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are scoped to explicitly granted access and private programs are included, which is a meaningful guarantee for the caller.
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?
One short sentence conveys the full meaning with no repetition or filler. The key scoping details—'explicitly has access' and 'including private programs'—are front-loaded and each phrase earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter filtered list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states exactly what is listed and highlights the critical inclusion of private programs. The annotations handle safety and open-world semantics, so nothing else is required to invoke it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing in parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb and resource: it lists programs for which the connected hunter has explicit access, including private programs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_programs, but the 'explicit access' scope makes the distinction inferable.
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 use case is implied: call this when you need the current hunter's explicitly accessible programs, including private ones. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with alternatives such as search_programs or recently_updated_programs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.