Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
h1-mcp

h1-mcp

by gabdevele
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_structured_scopes

Retrieve in-scope assets for a HackerOne program—including asset identifier, type, bounty eligibility, and max severity—using its handle.

Instructions

In-scope assets for a program: identifier, type, bounty eligibility and max severity.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "get_structured_scopes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (identifier, type, bounty eligibility, max severity), which is mild content transparency, but says nothing about permissions, auth, pagination, or whether the list is complete.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core resource, so it is not verbose. But it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured statement, and the terse field list substitutes for real explanation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description omits the required handle argument, prerequisites, and any routing guidance. For a program-scoped read tool with no annotations, this leaves too much to inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one required parameter (handle) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent must guess that 'handle' is the program identifier referenced by 'a program' in the description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource (in-scope assets for a program) and the fields returned, so an agent can infer it retrieves scopes. However it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like check_in_scope or get_scope_exclusions, which sound equally scope-related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus check_in_scope, get_scope_exclusions, or get_program. The word 'program' implies a program handle is needed, but no prerequisite or context is stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools