Retrieve complete details of a HackerOne report by ID, including vulnerability information, impact, severity, CVSS score, bounty, attachments, and program data.
Full details of one of your reports: title, vuln info, impact, severity, CVSS, bounty, attachments, program.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | The HackerOne report ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only return contents and ownership scope, but it does not mention authentication, error behavior, or that conversation/activity threads are excluded.
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?
One short sentence with a useful field list; no filler. The core subject is front-loaded and every listed item adds information.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description adequately conveys the return scope (title through program) and ownership limitation. It could be more complete by naming the conversation/activity sibling or clarifying ID format, but the low complexity keeps this from being a serious 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 coverage is 100% and the lone parameter is already described as 'The HackerOne report ID'. The description reinforces the report context but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema.
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?
Describes a specific action ('get') on a specific resource ('your reports') and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from search tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling hackerone_get_report_with_conversation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as hackerone_get_report_with_conversation or hackerone_get_report_activities. The phrase 'your reports' implies access scope, but there is no stated workflow for locating a report_id or when to choose another sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.