Search and paginate bug bounty programs visible to your hunter account. Filter by type, keywords, and include disabled programs to find relevant opportunities.
Recherche et pagine le catalogue de programmes visible par le hunter connecté.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| include_disabled | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a visibility scope ('visible par le hunter connecté') and pagination, which are useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, filtering semantics, or rate limits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for conveying the main purpose, though it sacrifices detail that other dimensions depend on.
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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits parameter semantics, return value expectations, and any differentiation from sibling listing tools, so an agent would need external knowledge or trial and error to use it reliably.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only generically mentions 'search' and 'pagination.' It does not explain the meaning of `type` enum values, `include_disabled`, or what `search` matches, leaving the agent without enough information to choose parameter values correctly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('le catalogue de programmes visible par le hunter connecté'), clearly conveying a search-and-pagination operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_accessible_programs or recently_updated_programs, which also relate to program catalog listing.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, so an agent must infer the intended usage from the name and bare description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.