h1-hacker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_structured_scopes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a program's structured scope to see which assets are in scope, submission-eligible, and bounty-eligible, with severity limits.

Instructions

List a program's structured scope (in-scope and submission-eligible assets).

Each asset includes asset_identifier, asset_type, eligible_for_submission,
eligible_for_bounty, max_severity, and instruction. Limited to 50 requests
per minute. Page offsets cover at most 10,000 rows; pass id_gt (the last
seen scope id) to continue, and prefer that over high page numbers.
created_after and updated_after are ISO-8601 timestamps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id_gt`	No
`handle`	Yes
`page_size`	No
`page_number`	No
`created_after`	No
`updated_after`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds meaningful non-schema behavior: a 50 req/min rate limit and the 10,000-row page offset ceiling. This goes beyond the structured fields and helps an agent plan calls, though it stops short of describing edge cases or error behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and operational detail follows in a compact second sentence. The enumerated asset fields are somewhat list-like but earn their place by describing returned content; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates the key asset fields, which aids interpretation. Combined with rate-limit and pagination notes, this is complete enough for correct invocation, with only the handle parameter's semantics left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage across 6 params, the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious ones: id_gt is explained as the last seen scope id for continuation, and created_after/updated_after are flagged as ISO-8601. handle, page_size, and page_number are left to inference, keeping it just short of full coverage.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('List a program's structured scope') and clarifies the content is in-scope, submission-eligible assets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the related sibling list_scope_exclusions, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives operational guidance for pagination ('pass id_gt... prefer that over high page numbers'), which is genuinely useful, but it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool versus siblings like list_scope_exclusions or get_program. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server