Skip to main content
Glama
SlanyCukr

Bug Bounty MCP Server

by SlanyCukr

bugbounty_comprehensive_assessment

Generate a complete bug bounty assessment by combining reconnaissance, vulnerability testing, OSINT gathering, and business logic analysis for targeted domains with prioritized vulnerability types.

Instructions

Create comprehensive bug bounty assessment combining all workflows.

Args: domain: Target domain scope: Comma-separated list of in-scope domains/IPs priority_vulns: Comma-separated list of priority vulnerability types include_osint: Include OSINT gathering include_business_logic: Include business logic testing

Returns: Comprehensive bug bounty assessment workflow

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
include_business_logicNo
include_osintNo
priority_vulnsNorce,sqli,xss,idor,ssrf
scopeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'bugbounty_comprehensive_assessment'. This function defines the tool logic, validates inputs via type hints, constructs a data payload, and forwards the request to the backend REST API endpoint '/api/bugbounty/comprehensive-assessment' for execution of the comprehensive assessment workflow.
    @mcp.tool()
    def bugbounty_comprehensive_assessment(
        domain: str,
        scope: str = "",
        priority_vulns: str = "rce,sqli,xss,idor,ssrf",
        include_osint: bool = True,
        include_business_logic: bool = True,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Create comprehensive bug bounty assessment combining all workflows.
    
        Args:
            domain: Target domain
            scope: Comma-separated list of in-scope domains/IPs
            priority_vulns: Comma-separated list of priority vulnerability types
            include_osint: Include OSINT gathering
            include_business_logic: Include business logic testing
    
        Returns:
            Comprehensive bug bounty assessment workflow
        """
        data = {
            "domain": domain,
            "scope": scope.split(",") if scope else [],
            "priority_vulns": priority_vulns.split(",") if priority_vulns else [],
            "include_osint": include_osint,
            "include_business_logic": include_business_logic,
        }
    
        logger.info(f"🎯 Creating comprehensive bug bounty assessment for {domain}")
        result = api_client.safe_post("api/bugbounty/comprehensive-assessment", data)
    
        if result.get("success"):
            logger.info(f"✅ Comprehensive assessment created for {domain}")
        else:
            logger.error(f"❌ Failed to create comprehensive assessment for {domain}")
    
        return result
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'combining all workflows' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether it executes workflows sequentially/parallel, time/rate limits, permission requirements, output format details beyond 'comprehensive assessment', or if it's destructive (e.g., testing might affect targets). The description is vague about what 'create' entails operationally.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is structured with purpose, Args, and Returns sections, which is clear. However, the purpose sentence is somewhat vague ('combining all workflows'), and the Args/Returns sections are minimal. It's concise but could be more informative; the structure helps, but content is lean given the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers all parameters briefly and states the return, but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter specifics. For a tool that likely orchestrates multiple workflows, more guidance on execution and output is needed to be fully helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters in the Args section with brief explanations (e.g., 'Target domain' for domain), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, formats (e.g., 'comma-separated' for scope/priority_vulns), or default values (e.g., priority_vulns defaults to 'rce,sqli,xss,idor,ssrf'). It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create comprehensive bug bounty assessment combining all workflows.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('comprehensive bug bounty assessment'), and indicates it combines workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bugbounty_business_logic_workflow' or 'bugbounty_osint_workflow' which appear to be components it might incorporate.

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. With many sibling tools for specific tasks (e.g., 'bugbounty_osint_workflow', 'bugbounty_vulnerability_hunting'), there's no indication whether this is a master tool that orchestrates others, when it's preferred over individual workflows, or any prerequisites. The only implied usage is from the purpose statement.

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/SlanyCukr/bugbounty-mcp-server'

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