cookies_getRetrieve cookies for the current domain of a browser tab. Specify a tab ID to target a specific tab, or omit it to use the latest active tab.
读取标签页当前域名相关的 cookies。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No | 标签页 id，省略时用最新标签页 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| cookies | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the domain scoping constraint (current domain of the tab), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential behaviors like empty results or format details, which are covered by the output schema.
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 sentence that immediately states the purpose without any filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool and front-loads the core action and scope.
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 description is sufficient for a simple read operation with one optional parameter. The output schema covers return format, and annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of error cases or what happens when no cookies exist, but that's not critical for such a straightforward tool.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the tab_id parameter is already documented. The description doesn't add extra meaning about the parameter beyond the domain scoping, which is implied by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.
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 clearly states the action (read), the resource (cookies), and the scope (current domain of the tab). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cookies_set and cookies_clear by specifying the read operation, making it unambiguous.
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 implies usage (read cookies when you need them) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Siblings are clearly different (set/clear), so it's implicitly obvious, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.