Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BrowserMCP Extended

BrowserMCP Extended

by NEO10111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_get_cookies

Retrieves all cookies for a specified URL, letting AI clients inspect session state, authentication tokens, and stored preferences for a target page.

Instructions

Get all cookies for a specific URL

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "browser_get_cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL whose cookies should be read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

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 burden and does not say whether it is read-only (implied by 'Get' only), whether it reads httpOnly/secure/session cookies or only JS-visible ones, whether cross-domain or subdomain cookies are included, or whether an active navigation context is required. For a credential-exposing tool these are meaningful gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, well sized for a single-parameter read tool. It is terse to the point of omitting scope details, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate the shape of the result (a cookie list with name/value/domain/flags) and which cookie classes are returned. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict what it will receive.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains the url argument. The description's 'for a specific URL' adds no format guidance (exact page URL vs. domain) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (cookies) with an explicit scope limit ('for a specific URL'), which separates it from browser_set_cookie and browser_delete_cookie. It does not however name browser_get_storage, the closest read-sibling, so differentiation is only implied.

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 statement of when to use this versus browser_get_storage or browser_snapshot, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the URL must be loaded in an active tab), and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything about context of use.

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