Export up to 500 current bug-bounty targets as filtered rows by tags, tiers, platforms, or program IDs, with options to include ineligible and out-of-scope entries.
Bounded export (max 500 rows) of current targets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| tiers | No | ||
| platforms | No | ||
| program_ids | No | ||
| include_ineligible | No | ||
| include_out_of_scope | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the 500-row cap. It does not say whether the export is read-only (implied but unstated), what happens when more than 500 rows match (silent truncation vs error), whether filters are ANDed, or how results are ordered/returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the bound is stated immediately. It is brief to the point of under-specification rather than padded, which is better than verbosity but leaves gaps elsewhere.
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 tool with 7 undocumented filter parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin; an agent cannot know filter semantics, truncation behavior, or the response shape. Only the row cap is covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: tags, tiers, platforms, program_ids, include_ineligible, and include_out_of_scope are never mentioned. The 500-row bound loosely maps to the limit parameter but gives no default or interaction rules.
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?
States a specific verb (export) and resource (current targets) with a scoping bound (max 500 rows), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_targets or search_targets, which an agent must choose between when it wants target data.
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 indication of when to use this versus list_targets, search_targets, or watchlist_new_targets, and no prerequisites or context such as what 'current' means. The agent must infer that export is for bulk retrieval versus interactive listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.