Retrieve, set, delete, or clear browser cookies by domain or name, with automatic backup before clearing. Export and import encrypted cookie snapshots for secure session management.
Get cookies (filter by domain/name), set cookies, delete/clear (auto-backup first), export/import encrypted snapshots
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| action | No | get | |
| domain | No | ||
| cookies | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful behavioral context: delete/clear auto-backups first, and export/import uses encrypted snapshots. However, it does not explain the broader side effects of set/delete/clear/import on the cookie store, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the most common action (get) and packs the other modes efficiently. The slash-heavy phrasing is slightly dense, but every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, six action modes, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only gives high-level hints. It does not state which parameters are required for each action, what file should contain for import/export, or what the return value looks like. An agent could invoke simple get/set, but would likely struggle with correct import/export or clear usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that domain and name are filters for get, cookies is used for set, and file is implied by export/import snapshots. However, it does not explain the action parameter's role in selecting these behaviors, nor does it fully specify how each parameter applies to each action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly names the resource (cookies) and enumerates concrete operations: get with domain/name filtering, set, delete/clear with backup, and export/import of encrypted snapshots. This is a specific, non-tautological statement that clearly separates cookie management from the browser-navigation siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is strongly implied by the name and the listed actions, so an agent can infer the usage context, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.