Read, set, delete, or clear browser cookie data by name, domain, path, and value to control session state during Chrome automation.
Cookie operation (get/set/delete/clear)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| secure | No | ||
| expires | No | ||
| httpOnly | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does implicitly signal that set/delete/clear are mutations, but says nothing about whether changes persist, what the return value looks like, or how the browser context is affected.
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?
A single parenthetical line is economical with no wasted words, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline. It is appropriately sized only in the sense that it says nothing that needs trimming.
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?
For an 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and three competing siblings, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine parameter semantics, behavior, or sibling routing from what is written.
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?
With 8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does not. The only parameter detail it offers is the action enum values, which are already fully documented in the schema, so it adds no meaning for name, path, value, domain, secure, expires, or httpOnly.
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 names the resource (cookies) and enumerates the operations (get/set/delete/clear), so an agent can infer the general function. However, 'Cookie operation' is a generic framing, and it does no work to distinguish this multi-action tool from the overlapping siblings get_cookies, set_cookie, and clear_cookies that already exist in the toolset.
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?
No guidance on when to use this composite tool versus the single-purpose siblings (get_cookies, set_cookie, clear_cookies). The agent is left to guess whether this is a unified alternative or a legacy duplicate, and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.