Export the active tab origin's storage snapshot—origin, localStorage, sessionStorage, and redacted cookie metadata—to inspect or back up browser state.
Export the storage snapshot of the active tab's origin: origin, localStorage, sessionStorage, and cookie metadata (cookie values always redacted). Params: rawCookieValues (boolean, ignored — kept for compatibility).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rawCookieValues | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scope (active tab's origin), a meaningful privacy trait (cookie values always redacted), and that rawCookieValues is a no-op. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, permission prerequisites, or snapshot size limits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the parameter caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (redacted cookies, ignored param) is not buried.
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?
Without an output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (origin, localStorage, sessionStorage, cookie metadata), so the agent knows what comes back. Minor gaps remain around permissions needed for the active tab and the response shape (object vs. file download).
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 entirely for the single parameter, and it does: rawCookieValues is called out as boolean, ignored, and retained only for compatibility, preventing the agent from believing it changes behavior.
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?
States a specific verb (export) and resource (storage snapshot of the active tab's origin) and enumerates the four data classes included, which implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower read_storage/read_cookies siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied by 'active tab's origin' and the aggregate 'snapshot' framing, suggesting it is the one-shot alternative to piecemeal reads. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to read_storage, read_cookies, or list_storage_areas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.