Cooper Email

Remove an allow or block entry

cooper_delete_list_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when an address or domain should leave an allow or block list. Requires auth. Deletes that one entry. Inputs: direction (required; send, receive, or reply), type (required; allow or block), entry (required; email or domain), inbox_id (optional; omit for the account-wide list). Returns the list entry with deleted true. Fails with 400 invalid_list, 400 invalid_entry, 404 list_entry_not_found, or inbox_not_found. The per-inbox task allowlist is unchanged.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	allow or block.
`entry`	Yes	Email address or domain to remove.
`inbox_id`	No	Inbox id (inb_…), username, or full email. Omit for the account-wide list.
`direction`	Yes	send, receive, or reply.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	allow or block.
`entry`	No	The email address or domain on the list.
`object`	No	Object type name, such as list, message, or thread.
`reason`	No	Optional note stored with the entry.
`deleted`	No	True when the object was deleted.
`inbox_id`	No	Inbox the entry applies to, or null for the whole account.
`direction`	No	inbound or outbound.
`created_at`	No	ISO-8601 time the object was created.
`entry_type`	No	email or domain.

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 list entry, with deleted true.",
+  "properties": {
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "ISO-8601 time the object was created."
+    },
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "True when the object was deleted."
+    },
+    "direction": {
+      "description": "inbound or outbound."
+    },
+    "entry": {
+      "description": "The email address or domain on the list."
+    },
+    "entry_type": {
+      "description": "email or domain."
+    },
+    "inbox_id": {
+      "description": "Inbox the entry applies to, or null for the whole account."
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "description": "Optional note stored with the entry."
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "allow or block."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, it discloses that auth is required, that only one entry is affected, the exact success shape (list entry with deleted true), four specific failure codes including 404 list_entry_not_found, and that the per-inbox task allowlist is unaffected. That is precisely the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Telegraphic and dense but front-loaded: the when-condition leads, then auth, then scope, then inputs, then return/errors. Every clause carries information, though the compressed "Inputs:" list reads as schema echo rather than added value.

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 destructive four-parameter deletion with an output schema present, the definition covers trigger, auth, blast radius, error outcomes, and an explicit non-effect on the task allowlist. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or decide not to.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including enum values and the "omit for the account-wide list" note. The description's enumerated inputs largely restate the schema, adding only the framing that entry accepts an email or domain, which the schema also states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: an address or domain leaving an allow or block list, and that exactly one entry is removed. This cleanly separates it from cooper_create_list_entry, cooper_get_list_entry, and cooper_delete_suppression without needing to open a schema.

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?

"Use this when an address or domain should leave an allow or block list" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the closing note that the per-inbox task allowlist is unchanged draws a scope boundary. It stops short of naming a sibling tool (e.g. cooper_list_list_entries to verify an entry exists first), so it is slightly under-routed versus a 5.

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.