Retrieve in-scope assets for a HackerOne program using its handle. Auto-paginates results and lists asset types, bounty eligibility, and severity caps.
In-scope assets of a program. Auto-paginates. Shows types, bounty eligibility, severity caps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Max items (default: all) | |
| program_handle | Yes | Program handle (e.g. 'uber') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses auto-pagination and the key output dimensions (types, bounty eligibility, severity caps). It does not mention access requirements or side effects, but this is a read-oriented getter, and the disclosed behaviors are relevant.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds a distinct useful detail. Very economical and well structured.
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?
For a simple scope-listing tool with only one required parameter and no nested objects, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what it returns, which program it targets, and pagination behavior. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the key output categories.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'Auto-paginates' adds behavioral context to page_size, but it doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource (a program's in-scope assets) and the information returned (types, bounty eligibility, severity caps). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hackerone_search_scopes, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.
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?
The phrase 'In-scope assets of a program' implies when to use this tool, and the required program_handle makes the target clear. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over hackerone_search_scopes or hackerone_list_scope_exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.