chrome

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Cookies

cookies

Read, set, delete, or clear current-site cookie data through Chrome's API; returned values may include secrets, so handle them carefully.

Instructions

Read, set, delete or clear cookies for the current site using Chrome cookies API. Values are returned to the model: handle secrets carefully.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cookies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	No
`name`	No
`path`	No
`tabId`	No
`value`	No
`action`	No	get
`domain`	No
`secure`	No
`storeId`	No
`httpOnly`	No
`sameSite`	No
`expirationDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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. It usefully notes that values are returned to the model and warns to handle secrets carefully, but it omits that set/delete/clear are mutating and potentially destructive operations, what permissions they need, or what happens on clear-all. For a tool with destroy semantics this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ending with the safety warning. No wasted words, though the safety note would earn more if paired with action-level detail. Size is appropriate.

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?

A 12-parameter mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema demands far more disclosure than given. The action enum, credential/session impact of clearing cookies, and store/tab scoping are all left unexplained, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

12 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanation in the description. Complex params like storeId, tabId, sameSite, and the action enum are entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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?

States specific verbs and resource ('Read, set, delete or clear cookies') and names the underlying Chrome cookies API, which clearly separates it from siblings like network or tabs. The scope is broad (four actions collapsed into one tool) but the resource is unambiguous.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no indication of which action to pick, and no prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus inspecting DOM, network, or tabs data. The only usage note is a generic secrets warning.

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

Deploy Server