Microapp

cookie-consent-generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a copy-pasteable HTML+CSS+JS cookie consent banner. Inputs: position (top/bottom), visual style (minimal/detailed/brutalist), which non-essential categories to expose (analytics, marketing, preferences), colors, button labels, message, policy URL, and the localStorage key. Output is a self-contained block that persists the visitor's choice and dispatches a cookieconsentchange CustomEvent for analytics wiring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`style`	Yes	Visual style. "minimal" = single sentence + accept/reject. "detailed" = full text plus per-category toggles. "brutalist" = hard borders, no shadow, monospace text.	detailed
`colors`	Yes	Color scheme for the banner. Pick contrasting accept/reject so users can tell them apart.
`buttons`	Yes	Button copy. Keep labels short — long copy wraps awkwardly on mobile.
`message`	Yes	The headline message shown on the banner. One or two sentences max.	We use cookies to make this site work and to understand how it's used. Pick what you're comfortable with.
`position`	Yes	Banner placement. "top" pins to the top of the viewport, "bottom" to the bottom.	bottom
`policyUrl`	Yes	URL for your full privacy / cookie policy. Rendered as a "Learn more" link.	/privacy
`categories`	Yes	Which non-essential category toggles to render. Necessary cookies are always on and shown as a locked row.
`storageKey`	Yes	localStorage key the banner writes the user's choice to.	cookie-consent

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`js`	Yes	Just the JS, without the surrounding <script> tags.
`css`	Yes	Just the CSS, without the surrounding <style> tags.
`html`	Yes	The complete copy-pasteable block: <style>, <script>, and the banner markup. Paste before </body>.
`markup`	Yes	Just the HTML markup for the banner, with no <style> or <script>.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedMay 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and deterministic. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the generated output: it persists via localStorage and dispatches a cookieconsentchange CustomEvent, which informs integration assumptions. No contradictions with annotations.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second lists inputs and output behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb, and every clause adds relevant information. No redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, this description is complete: it covers the purpose, input categories, output behavior (persistence, event dispatch), and signals it is a self-contained snippet. The output schema handles return-value details, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with detailed descriptions (position enum, style enum defaults, button labels, etc.). The description summarizes the inputs but adds no new semantic meaning; it simply restates what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a copy-pasteable HTML+CSS+JS cookie consent banner.' This clearly states what the tool does, distinguishes it from sibling generators (box-shadow, passphrase, etc.), and includes the output format (HTML+CSS+JS) which is a key differentiator.

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 context is clear: the tool produces a cookie consent banner, and the input/output description clarifies its scope. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident in a generator-heavy sibling list.

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

All Microapp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes. However, 'hex-to-rgb' is redundant with 'color-converter', which already handles hex-to-RGB conversion, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens style, but vary in pattern (e.g., 'angle-converter', 'average-calculator', 'dedup-lines'). One tool ('internal-do-not-call') deviates from the descriptive norm.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools, the server is heavily populated. Many converters could be merged into a generic unit converter, and there is redundancy, making the surface unnecessarily large for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of utility domains: converters, text processing, math, cryptography, etc. Minor redundancies exist (e.g., hex-to-rgb vs color-converter), but the set is otherwise comprehensive.

Resources

Need Help?