BrowserMCP Extended

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_delete_cookie

Deletes a named browser cookie from the active page, with an optional path, to clear specific stored session or tracking data.

Instructions

Delete a specific browser cookie by name

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "browser_delete_cookie"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Cookie URL (accepted for compatibility; deletion uses the active page)
`name`	Yes	Name of the cookie to delete
`path`	No	Cookie path (defaults to /)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it does not say deletion is irreversible, what happens if the cookie doesn't exist, whether an active page context is required, or that the `url` parameter is effectively ignored. The important caveat that deletion targets the active page appears only in the schema, not the description.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a mutation tool rather than being optimally sized.

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?

For a destructive, unannotated, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description omits the behaviorally decisive facts an agent needs: no confirmation of irreversibility, no error semantics, and no mention of the active-page context that governs what actually gets deleted.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (url, name, path) are already documented, including the notable compatibility note on `url`. The description adds only the implicit signal that `name` is the key identifier, which is baseline-level value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a specific browser cookie), scoped by name. It is clearly distinguishable from browser_get_cookies and browser_set_cookie in the sibling list, but it never names them or otherwise differentiates itself explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus browser_get_cookies or browser_set_cookie, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. that an active page/tab must exist). The single sentence only says what it does, not when to reach for it.

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