BugSecure MCP

Get published terms

get_program_terms

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the published terms governing a bug bounty report—either a program's own terms or BugSecure's platform terms—and list or return full-text versions, newest first.

Instructions

The published terms a report is bound by: a programme’s own terms (programId), or BugSecure’s platform terms for researchers or organisations (kind). Lists every published version, newest first, and returns one in full (the newest unless versionId). Read-only: terms are accepted only on the BugSecure website.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	BugSecure’s platform terms instead.
`fullText`	No	Return the text whole, not cut at 20,000 characters.
`programId`	No	A programme’s terms (from search_programs).
`versionId`	No	Which version to return in full (default: the newest).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document`	No	Null when nothing is published.
`versions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral details such as listing versions newest-first, returning the newest version by default unless versionId is specified, and the 20,000-character cut-off (via fullText). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's operational behavior without contradicting them.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and covers both modes and the versioning behavior without any fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the two input modes, version listing, and the default full-text return. It does not explicitly state that programId and kind are mutually exclusive, but this is implied and not critical. Overall, the description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the meaning of kind, fullText, programId, and versionId. The description reiterates some of these (e.g., programId vs kind) but adds little beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving published terms that a report is bound by, with two distinct modes (program-specific via programId, or platform terms via kind). It also specifies that it lists all published versions and returns one in full, making the functionality unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that deal with reports, programs, or profiles.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides context on when to use the tool (to view terms a report is bound by) and clarifies that acceptance happens on the website, not via this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when this tool should not be used, leaving some inference required.

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