CookieGuard AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cookieguard_audit

Destructive

Audit authentication-cookie configuration by URL or sanitized evidence file to identify missing HttpOnly, Secure, and SameSite protections and return rule-based fixes without exposing cookie values.

Instructions

Audit authentication-cookie configuration with the fixed startup policy. Pass exactly one of: url (GET one URL on a configured origin and audit its Set-Cookie headers; makes network requests, sends no cookies or credentials) or evidenceFile (re-evaluate a sanitized CookieGuard JSON report that your own Browser Use, Playwright, or CLI run wrote to the configured evidence directory). Returns passed, failed, or incomplete (exitCode 0/1/2) with rule IDs and fixes, never cookie values.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	HTTP(S) URL on a configured origin, without credentials, query, or fragment. Do not include secrets in the path.
`evidenceFile`	No	Plain file name such as login-report.json inside the configured evidence directory. No paths.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`exitCode`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`provenance`	No
`limitations`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`omittedFindings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: network requests occur, no cookies or credentials are sent, and cookie values are never returned (only rule IDs and fixes). That is valuable for a tool flagged openWorldHint and destructiveHint. It doesn't explain why it is non-idempotent/destructive given the read-only framing, which is a small gap rather than a contradiction.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the mode switch, then the return contract — a logical order with no filler. The parenthetical clauses are dense and make single sentences long, but each carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite an output schema existing, the description still states the outcome vocabulary (passed/failed/incomplete, exitCode 0/1/2) and what is returned (rule IDs and fixes, never cookie values). Combined with the origin/evidence-directory constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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%, so the mechanics of both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does add the mutually-exclusive constraint absent from the schema (no oneOf, zero required parameters) and clarifies the behavioral effect of each mode, which lifts it slightly above baseline.

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 ("Audit authentication-cookie configuration") plus the governing policy ("fixed startup policy"), and the two distinct operating modes make it clearly distinguishable from cookieguard_scan, cookieguard_policy, and cookieguard_explain.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule for the two modes ("Pass exactly one of: url ... or evidenceFile") and the condition behind each (live GET on a configured origin vs. re-evaluating a report your own Playwright/CLI run wrote). It does not say when to prefer this over cookieguard_scan, so sibling routing is only partly covered.

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

Deploy Server