cmcp

by DeveshB-1

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Cookies/Get Cookies

cookies_get_cookies

Read-only

Retrieve all cookies stored for the current domain and return previously set key-value pairs as JSON.

Instructions

Use this endpoint to get a list of all cookies that are stored with respect to this domain. Whatever key-value pairs that has been previously set by calling the "Set Cookies" endpoint, will be returned as response JSON.

(Postman request: Cookies/Get Cookies | GET https://postman-echo.com/cookies)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cookies_get_cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result is a JSON list, scoped to the current domain, containing key-value pairs set via the Set Cookies endpoint. It does not mention empty-result behavior or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and scope, with the Set Cookies provenance immediately after. The trailing Postman request line (method + URL) is mildly redundant but useful for endpoint orientation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential context: what is returned, its provenance, and its domain scope. No output schema exists, so a brief note on the response shape (array of key-value cookie objects) would have made it fully self-contained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing further for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies cleanly.

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 ("get a list of all cookies") and scopes it to "stored with respect to this domain". It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the Set Cookies sibling by naming the endpoint that populates the returned data.

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 description gives a clear use case: reading cookies previously written by Set Cookies. It implies the read-vs-write split against siblings (cookies_set_cookies, cookies_delete_cookies) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives as such.

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