BountyProof MCP

by skyxtools

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct phase or aspect of security testing (e.g., session setup, scope validation, scanning, verification). There is no functional overlap that would confuse an agent.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., start_session, import_surface). Only 'scope_check' deviates slightly (noun_verb), but the convention is otherwise consistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the set covers essential security testing actions without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The workflow from session start to report retrieval is covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit session termination or report listing), but core operations are present.
Average 3/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions rate limiting and gate prerequisites but does not disclose whether the tool modifies data, side effects, or output format. This is minimal and insufficient.
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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks a clear structure. It does not start with the main purpose and relies on the agent knowing what 'Katana' and 'preflight gates' are. Brevity is achieved at the expense of clarity.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It omits key context: what 'Katana' is, how to set depth/max_urls, and what 'preflight gates' entail. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds no explanation for parameters like depth, max_urls, or override_guarded. It only alludes to 'session rate limit' without connecting to session_id, leaving the agent with no guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not explicitly state that the tool discovers URLs or attack surface; it only says 'Use Katana...' which is vague. It fails to provide a clear verb+resource purpose, making it difficult for an agent to understand its primary function.
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 implies that this tool should be used after scope and preflight gates pass and at session rate limit, which provides some context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scope_check' or 'preflight_target', nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, safety, or return behavior. The only behavioral hint is 'compare', implying read-only, but no confirmation or details on what happens.
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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and essential details, making it minimally effective. A good structure would front-load key information, but here it is too sparse.
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?
Given no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and 4 required parameters, the description is highly incomplete. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged. The tool involves complex comparison logic, yet no behavioral or return value context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter roles or values. The tool name hints at 'session_id', 'origin_run_id', 'candidate_index', and 'direct_request_confirmed', but no semantics are provided, leaving the agent guessing.
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 action (compare) and resources (HTTPS edge response vs direct-IP response), with context (after a fresh user decision, using target SNI/Host). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify_finding' by specifying the comparison with direct-IP, but could be more explicit about the 'verify' aspect.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_finding' or 'compare_authorization'. The description mentions 'after a fresh user decision' but does not explain when not to use or provide comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a condition ('belongs to active engagement session') but omits effects like read-only nature, error behavior, or side effects. The word 'Load' hints at reading, but is insufficient.
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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is valuable, but it borders on under-specification. It is front-loaded with the main action and condition.
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?
Given the complexity of a report-loading tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage) and an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the condition, default behavior, or relation to siblings. It is incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It does not explain 'run_id', 'session_id', or 'output_format'. The names are somewhat clear, but no additional meaning is added beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Load' and the resource 'report', and adds a specific condition about belonging to the active engagement session. This differentiates it from siblings like 'discover_surface' or 'verify_finding', though not explicitly.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The condition 'only when it belongs to the active engagement session' implies a prerequisite, but does not explain contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that credentials are never stored, which is important, but it does not explain idempotency, duplicate handling, state changes, or prerequisites like a valid session_id. The session_id parameter remains unexplained.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that is concise and directly conveys the core purpose without any extraneous information.
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?
Given that the tool has an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description does not mention return values or side effects. It lacks details on workflow integration (e.g., required prior steps like start_session) and does not address the nested structure of profiles, which is essential for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for top-level parameters (profiles, session_id). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definitions; it does not explain how profiles are structured or what session_id is used for. For a tool with two parameters, the description should clarify at least the required context.
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 registers auth profile metadata and environment-variable names, and explicitly notes that actual credentials are never stored. This provides a specific verb+resource and a key behavioral distinction.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like compare_authorization, scan_high_signal, etc., have different purposes, but the description does not differentiate or provide context for when registration is appropriate (e.g., before scanning).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: it replays requests without changing IDs or data, and does so twice. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authorization requirements, side effects, or constraints like rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the core action. However, it excludes necessary details for a tool with 9 parameters, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 params, 7 required, 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It omits parameter explanations, output schema context, and operational details, forcing agents to rely on guessing or external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly references 'owner_profile' and 'comparison_profiles', leaving 7 of 9 parameters (including session_id, surface_run_id, endpoint_index) unexplained. Agents cannot infer their purpose or valid values.
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 action (replay a GET request) and its specifics (as owner and 1-3 profiles, twice, without modifying data). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on authorization comparison through replay.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like 'scan_high_signal' or 'register_auth_profiles'. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid, leaving agents to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions redaction of values and rejection of out-of-scope endpoints, providing some behavioral context. With no annotations, more details (e.g., destructive nature, auth requirements) would improve transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key behaviors. It is front-loaded and free of clutter.
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?
The description covers the import function and key behaviors but omits details like output or prerequisites. Given the presence of an output schema, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It mentions file types (HAR/OpenAPI/Postman) relating to input_format, but does not explain base_url, file_path, or session_id meaning beyond schema.
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 imports local HAR/OpenAPI/Postman files, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the import function is distinct.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_surface or scope_check. The description implies usage for importing files but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description reveals some behavioral traits: it re-runs a template 2-3 times within the same session. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, destructive actions, or authorization requirements beyond implying session existence. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.
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?
Given the complexity of four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain key concepts like finding_index or scan_run_id, and while an output schema exists, the description offers no context on return values or verification outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters, despite the schema having four (rounds, session_id, scan_run_id, finding_index) with zero description coverage. It fails to explain what these parameters represent or how they relate to the tool's operation, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
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 specific action: re-running exactly one Nuclei template multiple times within an authorized session. It uses a specific verb ('re-run') and resource ('Nuclei template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like discover_surface or scan_high_signal.
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 its siblings (e.g., preflight_target, verify_origin_candidate). It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing finding to verify, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at checks (stability, latency, etc.) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for full transparency.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous information. It is highly concise.
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?
While the purpose is clear and the aspects checked are listed, the description omits explanation of the required session_id parameter and the optional samples parameter. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent gets no additional meaning about url, samples, or session_id beyond the schema. This is a critical gap.
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 checks friction before live testing, listing specific aspects (stability, latency, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_high_signal or verify_finding, which focus on different phases.
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 phrase 'before live testing' gives context on when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives among the siblings. The usage guidelines are implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses HTTP-only operation, high/critical templates, and adherence to session scope/rate limits. However, it omits whether the tool is destructive or read-only, and does not explain effects like state changes or output format.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details.
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 the presence of 5 parameters, 3 required, and sibling tools, the description hints at workflow integration (session scope, preflight run) but does not explain the relationship to session preflight or the role of preflight_run_id. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (urls, profile, session_id, override_guarded, preflight_run_id). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.
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 runs HTTP-only Nuclei high/critical templates, specifying the verb 'Run', the resource 'Nuclei high/critical templates', and constraints. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_authorization or discover_surface by focusing on scanning.
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 mentions 'under session scope, rules, and rate limit' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preflight_target or verify_finding. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond session scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes 'without HTTP traffic' but does not disclose return behavior, side effects, auth requirements, or what 'validate' entails precisely.
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?
Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with action and key qualifier. No redundant information.
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?
For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. Lacks details on return values (output schema exists but contents unknown) and edge cases. Could be more informative for an agent.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description implies the role of session_id and url but does not provide per-parameter details. It adds some value over the schema but does not fully compensate.
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 action (validate), the resource (URL against session's rules), and a key differentiator (without HTTP traffic). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_high_signal' or 'verify_finding'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool sends no traffic and creates a session, but it does not explain the session's persistence, idempotency, or any authorization or rate limit implications.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the most important information ('FIRST TOOL'). Every word is purposeful, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.
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?
Given the tool has 8 parameters (7 required) and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the session lifecycle, how subsequent tools depend on it, or what the output schema contains.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It only instructs to ask for every field without explaining what each parameter means, e.g., 'allowed_activities' enum values, 'rules', or 'forbidden_tests'.
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 it is the 'FIRST TOOL' that creates an engagement session and sends no traffic. The verb 'create' and resource 'engagement session' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_high_signal or preflight_target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'FIRST TOOL' and instructs to ask the user for every field before invoking, providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Clearly states that no IP traffic is sent, indicating passive operation. However, with no annotations, the description could disclose more about required permissions or side effects beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with key action and constraints, no wasted words.
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?
Lacks explanation of what 'unverified origin IP candidates' entails and how 'in-scope DNS hints' are determined. Though output schema exists, context for input parameters and overall workflow is incomplete.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not elaborate on any of the three parameters, leaving their meaning to be inferred from names only.
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: finding unverified origin IP candidates using DNS hints and optional historical DNS. It is specific and differentiates from sibling 'verify_origin_candidate'.
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 implies usage context (before verification) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. No 'when not to use' statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bountyproof-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skyxtools/bountyproof-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skyxtools/bountyproof-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bountyproof-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skyxtools/bountyproof-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skyxtools/bountyproof-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/skyxtools/bountyproof-mcp'

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