Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@cookiemunch/mcp

@cookiemunch/mcp

Official
by Cookie-Munch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_consent_log

Get anonymised consent logs for a site by submitting its identifier. Optionally filter by time range and limit results.

Instructions

Get recent anonymised consent records for a site.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cbid": "<cbid>"
    },
    "name": "get_consent_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEpoch-ms upper bound.
cbidYesSite identifier (cbid). Must belong to your org.
fromNoEpoch-ms lower bound.
limitNoMax records to return (default 200).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'anonymised' and 'recent' but does not explain how recent is defined, whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or what fields are returned. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what qualifies as 'recent', the meaning of anonymised, or the response structure. For a log retrieval tool, more detail 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and the specific resource ('recent anonymised consent records') and includes the scope ('for a site'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_consent_stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_consent_stats or export_consent). The only context is that `cbid` must belong to your org, but no explicit when-not or comparison to siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools