Skip to main content
Glama

Aginx Browser

by net.aginx
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

session_cookies

Read-only

Export the session's current cookies. Default (meta absent/false) is the full Set-Cookie form ("name=value; Domain=…; Path=/", flags included) — the login-state reuse face that round-trips with session_create's cookies field. meta:true switches to the metadata-only view (#102): [{name, domain, path, secure, httpOnly, sameSite, expires (unix secs, null = session cookie), hostOnly}] with NO values — cookie values are credentials and never leave the server, so "which auth state exists" (is the session cookie Secure, when does it expire, which domains landed) is answerable without holding a single one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNoMetadata-only view (#102): {name, domain, path, secure, httpOnly, sameSite, expires, hostOnly} per cookie — no values, ever. For checking what auth state exists; leave false for the value-bearing export that round-trips login state.
session_idYesSession ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / meta
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Metadata-only view (#102): {name, domain, path, secure, httpOnly,\nsameSite, expires, hostOnly} per cookie — no values, ever. For\nchecking what auth state exists; leave false for the value-bearing\nexport that round-trips login state.",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"SessionCookiesParams"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that cookie values are credentials and never leave the server in meta mode, specifies expires as unix secs with null meaning a session cookie, and enumerates the metadata fields returned. This is exactly the security and output-shape context an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the two modes, then the rationale. It is dense and information-rich but somewhat long, with nested parentheticals and examples that slightly impede scanning; nearly every clause earns its place, though.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by fully specifying both return shapes, including the exact meta field list and the caveat that values are omitted. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description still adds value by clarifying that the default applies when meta is absent OR false (the schema default is null, which is ambiguous), and by explaining the purpose of each mode for the meta flag.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export the session's current cookies') and immediately splits the behavior into two clearly named modes (default Set-Cookie form vs meta:true metadata-only view), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like session_storage, session_state, and session_export.

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?

Gives clear selection logic between its own two modes: default is the 'login-state reuse face that round-trips with session_create's cookies field', while meta:true answers 'which auth state exists'. It does not explicitly contrast the tool against sibling tools (e.g. when to prefer this over session_storage/session_export), so guidance is strong but not complete.

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

All Aginx Browser toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources