Cooper Email

Get one allow or block entry

cooper_get_list_entry

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need one address or domain on an allow or block list. Read-only; requires auth. 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 {object:"list_entry", direction, type, entry, entry_type, inbox_id, reason, created_at}. Fails with 400 invalid_list, 400 invalid_entry, 404 list_entry_not_found, or inbox_not_found.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	allow or block.
`entry`	Yes	Email address or domain, matched case-insensitively.
`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.",
+  "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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The description does add genuine value with the auth requirement and the enumerated failure modes (400 invalid_list, 400 invalid_entry, 404 list_entry_not_found / inbox_not_found), but says nothing about matching behavior or how an absent entry differs from an error.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then inputs, then return shape and errors — a sensible ordering with no filler prose. It is dense, and the inputs clause partially duplicates the schema, which keeps it from being maximally efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-one tool, the description covers purpose, auth, parameters, return fields, and error codes. Because an output schema exists, the inline return shape is redundant rather than required, so there is minor over-coverage but no meaningful gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including enum values and the 'omit for the account-wide list' note. The description's inputs sentence restates the same information without adding syntax, format, or resolution semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('need one address or domain on an allow or block list') and the singular 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling cooper_list_list_entries. It stops short of naming that sibling outright, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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 you need one address or domain' sets a clear selection context, and the presence of cooper_create_list_entry / cooper_list_list_entries / cooper_delete_list_entry in the sibling set makes the read-one role obvious. It offers no explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions, keeping it below 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.