Retrieve your submitted HackerOne reports with state, severity, and bounty details. Pass a report ID to view one report, or list reports with pagination.
Your own submitted reports (state, severity, bounty). Pass report_id for one report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| report_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, yet it only discloses that results are scoped to the caller's own reports. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether the list is paginated or bounded, or how state/severity/bounty are represented, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema defaults.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the alternate mode. There is no filler, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specifying pagination.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not strictly needed, and the description does hint at returned fields. For a simple read tool this is close to adequate, but with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the absence of any pagination or auth context leaves a real gap.
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, but it only explains `report_id` (selects a single report). The `page` and `limit` parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent gets no guidance on pagination semantics.
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 names a concrete resource — the caller's own submitted reports — and even lists the salient fields (state, severity, bounty), which separates it from sibling listing tools like search_disclosed_reports or hacktivity_search. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.
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?
It gives one clear mode switch — 'Pass `report_id` for one report' — which tells the agent how to go from list to single-item retrieval. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling discovery tools or what happens when no report_id is supplied, so usage remains implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.