Delete cookie
browser_cookie_deleteDelete a specified browser cookie by name.
Instructions
Delete one cookie by name.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Cookie name |
browser_cookie_deleteDelete a specified browser cookie by name.
Delete one cookie by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Cookie name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'destructiveHint: false' directly contradicts the description's explicit deletion action. Deleting a cookie is a destructive operation, and the annotation misleads the agent about the tool's impact. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust.
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?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is appropriate for a simple action. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial context, though the structure itself is clean.
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?
The description lacks essential operational details such as the cookie scope (current domain, path), whether it affects all matching cookies or just one, and any side effects on the page or session. Given that the tool deletes data, this missing context makes it difficult to use safely.
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?
The only parameter 'name' is described as 'Cookie name' in the schema, and the description simply repeats that without adding details about required domain/path, optional attributes, or how the cookie is uniquely identified. This leaves the agent guessing about the exact cookie to target.
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 states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'one cookie by name', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'browser_cookie_clear' that deletes all cookies. However, it does not specify the domain or path scope, leaving slight ambiguity about which cookie is targeted.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_cookie_set' or 'browser_cookie_clear'. It does not mention that this deletes a single cookie while other tools handle bulk operations or retrieval, so the agent has to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/81117105108108/Blinkwire'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server