Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umbra

umbra

by lxchx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Cookies

get_cookies

Retrieves all cookies from a specified tab context to debug sessions and audit tracking.

Instructions

All cookies in tab context. For session debug, audit tracking.

Ex: get_cookies('t0') → {"_untrusted":true,"cookies":[{"name":"...","value":"...","domain":"..."}]}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden. It discloses scope ('all cookies in tab context') and includes an example output showing an untrusted flag and cookie fields, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or security considerations beyond the implied read-only nature of 'get'.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core behavior before the example. The example adds some clarity, though it is partly redundant with the output schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a sample result. It still leaves the tab_id semantics and any permission or privacy expectations unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required tab_id parameter. The example get_cookies('t0') shows the argument format but does not explain what a tab_id represents or how to obtain one, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: getting all cookies in a tab context. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like clear_cookies or set_cookies, but the purpose is still clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'For session debug, audit tracking' gives usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_cookies or set_cookies. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools