Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pony-browser-mcp

pony-browser-mcp

by pssrh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_get_cookies

Retrieve cookies for a specific domain to access session data or debug authentication. Provide the domain and receive its cookies.

Instructions

Get cookies for a specific 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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "browser_get_cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to get cookies for (e.g. ".stripe.com")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get cookies' and does not reveal the return format, whether cookies include httpOnly or session cookies, how domain matching works, or whether this operation has any side effects on browser state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its scope without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only one parameter.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the returned cookies look like or that the operation returns a list. As written, it leaves the agent to infer the result format and any domain-matching behavior, which is a meaningful gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with an example, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond saying the domain is specific, so it remains at the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'cookies', and the scope 'for a specific domain'. It distinguishes this tool from browser_set_cookies and all other browser tools by its read-only retrieval purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as browser_set_cookies or other browser utilities. The intended use is implied by the tool name and simple verb, but no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisite steps are stated.

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