Persists a browsing session's current cookies and storage back to the encrypted vault, so authenticated site state can be reused in later AI agent runs.
Write the session's current cookies/storage back to the encrypted vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/network profile is known. The description adds that the write target is encrypted persistent storage, which is meaningful context. It does not disclose overwrite semantics, whether a prior vault entry is replaced, or failure behavior for a mutation tool.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the destination ('encrypted vault') is front-loaded where it matters. It is brief because it omits information rather than because it is well-scoped.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is single-parameter. However, for a persistence mutation sitting beside close_session and open_session, the definition omits ordering/precondition guidance that an agent needs to call it correctly.
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% and the single parameter session_id is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains what identifier is expected (current session vs. profile id) or its format. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate but does not.
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 ('write ... back') and resource ('the session's current cookies/storage') plus destination ('encrypted vault'), so the operation is concrete. It doesn't explicitly separate itself from close_session, which is the sibling an agent will most likely confuse it with.
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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this must be called before close_session, whether close_session persists automatically, or in what workflows saving is required. The agent must infer the call site entirely, which is risky given close_session exists right next to it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.