Retrieve cookies from the current browser session, filtering by domain or path to inspect or debug session data.
List cookies in the current session, optionally filtered by domain and/or path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Filter cookies by path (exact match). | |
| domain | No | Filter cookies by domain (substring match). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation with no destructive behavior, and 'current session' clarifies scope. It lacks explicit statements about return format or permissions, but the non-mutating nature is well conveyed.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action ('List cookies in the current session') and appends the optional filters. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 read-only list operation with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and scope. It does not elaborate on the return structure, but the tool name and verb 'List' imply a list of cookies, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their types and filtering semantics (exact vs substring). The description merely restates that filtering is possible by domain and/or path, adding no meaning beyond the structured 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('cookies'), and the scope ('current session'), alongside optional filters. This differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_cookie_get, set, delete, and clear, which have obviously different operations.
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 implies usage for listing cookies in the session, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over browser_cookie_get (which likely targets a specific cookie) or any other alternative. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.