Retrieve public bug-bounty programs by lead tier (top, hot, solid, possible) and filter by tags, platforms, search, or free submissions to prioritize targets.
Programs in one lead tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| tier | Yes | ||
| search | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| platforms | No | ||
| free_submission_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result shape, or whether the tier filter is exclusive. A 7-parameter query tool is left completely opaque.
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 five-word fragment is not concise but under-specified; there is nothing to front-load because no substance exists. It wastes no words, but that is only because it says almost nothing.
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 7-parameter filtered-list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits pagination behavior, filter semantics, and return content entirely. An agent cannot call this correctly without opening the schema and reverse-engineering intent.
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% and six of seven properties have empty description strings. The description adds no meaning for tier's enum values, tags, platforms, search, page/page_size, or free_submission_only, so nothing compensates for the schema gap.
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?
"Programs in one lead tier" is a noun phrase with no verb and no object beyond "programs"; it hints at a list operation filtered by tier but the agent cannot tell what it returns or how it differs from siblings like find_programs, search_targets, or list_targets.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With 17 sibling tools including several that also enumerate programs/targets, the absence of any disambiguation leaves selection entirely to guesswork.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.