Skip to main content
Glama
Sicks3c

HackerOne MCP Server

by Sicks3c

list_programs

Retrieve bug bounty programs accessible on HackerOne to identify eligible targets for security testing.

Instructions

List bug bounty programs you have access to on HackerOne.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_sizeNoNumber of programs to return (default 50)

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the `listPrograms` function which fetches data from the HackerOne API.
    export async function listPrograms(pageSize = 50) {
      const data = await h1Fetch("/hackers/programs", {
        "page[size]": String(pageSize),
      });
    
      return data.data.map((p: any) => ({
        id: p.id,
        handle: p.attributes.handle,
        name: p.attributes.name,
        offers_bounties: p.attributes.offers_bounties,
        state: p.attributes.state,
        started_accepting_at: p.attributes.started_accepting_at,
        submission_state: p.attributes.submission_state,
      }));
    }
  • src/index.ts:176-200 (registration)
    The MCP tool registration for `list_programs`, including input schema (using zod) and the handler logic that calls the `listPrograms` helper function.
    server.tool(
      "list_programs",
      "List bug bounty programs you have access to on HackerOne.",
      {
        page_size: z
          .number()
          .min(1)
          .max(100)
          .optional()
          .describe("Number of programs to return (default 50)"),
      },
      async ({ page_size }) => {
        try {
          const programs = await listPrograms(page_size);
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: JSON.stringify(programs, null, 2),
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (err: any) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${err.message}` }],
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists programs but omits critical details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by the 'page_size' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, pagination, or output format, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively. For a list operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide proper invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter ('page_size') with its type, constraints, and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, but it doesn't compensate with additional context like typical usage patterns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('bug bounty programs you have access to on HackerOne'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'get_program_scope' or 'get_program_weaknesses'), which would require mentioning that this returns a list of programs rather than details about a specific program.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to sibling tools, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., initial discovery vs. detailed analysis). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sicks3c/hackerone-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server