Retrieve event history for one bug-bounty program or all programs, covering scope, rewards, fees, status, and repository changes. Filter by category, date, and limit to track program updates.
Event history (program/scope/rewards/fees/status/repositories) for one program, or all programs when program_id is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| program_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope and event categories, but gives no information about ordering, pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or how much history is returned. For a five-parameter history tool with no structured annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. The scoping rule is front-loaded and the event categories are compactly enumerated.
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 tool has five optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description supplies only the high-level scope and event categories, leaving pagination, time filtering, category filtering, and return shape unexplained. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently beyond the simplest case.
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%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It explains program_id omission and lists category-like values, but says nothing about limit, since, cursor, or how the listed categories map to the category parameter. This leaves most parameters semantically undocumented.
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 identifies the resource as event history and lists the event categories it can return. It also distinguishes the scoped case (one program via program_id) from the unscoped case (all programs). The main gap is that it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is still easy to understand.
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 gives one useful usage rule: omit program_id to get all programs. It does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like status, get_program, program_brief, or program_payouts, nor does it explain when the event history is more appropriate than those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.