Cooper Email

Stop an MCP event subscription

cooper_delete_event_subscription

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when an MCP event subscription should stop. Requires auth. Inputs: id (required, mes_… from cooper_list_event_subscriptions). Keeps the row for audit and returns it with status ended and retained true. An ended row does not deliver and does not count toward the 20 subscription cap. A second delete of the same id returns status ended and retained true again. Another account's id, or an inbox this key cannot see, returns 404 event_subscription_not_found. A key without webhook_write receives 403 permission_denied.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Subscription id (mes_…) from cooper_list_event_subscriptions.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Stable id of the returned object. Pass it to the matching get, update, or delete tool.
`object`	No	Object type name, such as list, message, or thread.
`status`	No	ended after delete.
`retained`	No	True when the row is kept for history.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The ended subscription.",
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Stable id of the returned object. Pass it to the matching get, update, or delete tool."
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+    },
+    "retained": {
+      "description": "True when the row is kept for history."
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "ended after delete."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, it discloses audit retention, the ended and retained result, cessation of delivery, exclusion from the 20-subscription cap, and exact repeat-delete behavior. It also documents authentication and webhook_write permission requirements, visibility-scoped 404 responses, and the 403 permission_denied failure mode.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact invocation, lifecycle, idempotency, and error details in a logical order. Although the input recap largely duplicates the schema, the description remains dense with operationally useful information and contains no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive mutation, it covers the id source, permissions, retained state, delivery effects, subscription-cap implications, repeated calls, and important error cases. An output schema is present, and the description still supplies the key returned-state semantics needed to predict the operation's effect.

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%, and the schema already documents the id prefix and its source in cooper_list_event_subscriptions. The description repeats that information and requiredness without adding new format, validation, or selection semantics, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence specifies the action, stopping, and the resource, an MCP event subscription, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete consumers, webhooks, or other resources. Explaining that the row is retained with status ended further clarifies that this terminates delivery rather than physically deleting the record.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says to use the tool when a subscription should stop and identifies cooper_list_event_subscriptions as the source of a valid id. It does not provide when-not guidance or explicitly contrast this operation with deleting an event consumer or webhook.

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

All Cooper Email tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.