veilbrowser

veil_get_cookies

Get browser cookies as JSON, with optional filtering by origin for targeted access.

Instructions

Return the browser's current cookies as JSON (name, value, domain, path, expires, httpOnly, secure, sameSite, ...). Symmetric with cookie injection. Optionally pass urls to scope the read to specific origins.

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": "veil_get_cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	No	origins to scope the read to (default: the page's current frames)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must compensate. It discloses the return format (JSON with fields) and symmetric behavior with injection, but lacks info on permissions, side effects, or whether it reads cookies for all domains or current context only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the main action and return format. No irrelevant words or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists return fields and explains the optional parameter. It lacks detail on default behavior (which cookies are returned) and edge cases like empty result, but is otherwise adequate for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. The description adds limited value by saying 'optionally' and 'specific origins', but mostly repeats the schema description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the browser's current cookies as JSON, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools (no other cookie-related tool in siblings) and mentions symmetry with cookie injection.

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 advises when to use the optional `urls` parameter to scope the read. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tools suggests no other cookie retrieval tool exists, making guidance clear enough.

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