Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

by softallice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_set_cookies

Set cookies in a browser session to handle authentication, personalize settings, or simulate user states for testing.

Instructions

Set cookies in the browser

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": {
      "cookies": "<cookies>"
    },
    "name": "browser_set_cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cookiesYesCookies to set
sessionIdNoBrowser session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states a mutation ('Set') but does not disclose whether cookies are replaced or merged, whether a sessionId is required, or what side effects occur. The minimal wording 'in the browser' lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence, 'Set cookies in the browser,' is extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core meaning with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as whether existing cookies are cleared, how sessionId affects scope, or any practical usage hints. The absence of guidance makes it incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('Cookies to set' and 'Browser session ID'), so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no further semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate.

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 'Set cookies in the browser' uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('cookies') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_get_cookies and browser_clear_cookies. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use browser_clear_cookies first, or when a session is required). Sibling tools exist, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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