Cooper Email

List durable event consumers

cooper_list_event_consumers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this to see the durable event consumers on this account. Read-only; requires auth and message_read. No inputs. Returns {object:"list", data:[{object:"event_consumer", id, client_id, inbox_id, types, cursor, created_at, updated_at, last_polled_at, last_committed_at}]}. An inbox-scoped key sees only consumers pinned to its inbox. Another account's consumers are not listed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Items on this page, in the order the tool description gives.
`object`	No	Object type name, such as list, message, or thread.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Event consumers on the account.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Items on this page, in the order the tool description gives.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "client_id": {
+            "description": "Caller idempotency key stored with the object, or null."
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the object was created."
+          },
+          "cursor": {
+            "description": "Committed position of the consumer."
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Event consumer id."
+          },
+          "inbox_id": {
+            "description": "Inbox id (inb_…) this object belongs to. Null when it applies to every inbox."
+          },
+          "last_committed_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time of the last commit, or null."
+          },
+          "last_polled_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time of the last poll, or null."
+          },
+          "object": {
+            "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+          },
+          "types": {
+            "description": "Event types this consumer reads."
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the object last changed."
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming the required permission scope ('requires auth and message_read') and the key-scoping visibility rules (inbox-pinned consumers only, no cross-account leakage), which are real operational constraints an agent must anticipate.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then permission scope, then return shape, then visibility caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The inline JSON return-shape block is slightly redundant since an output schema already exists, which costs a fraction of a point.

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 no-argument read tool this covers purpose, auth, response shape and scoping limits, which is more than enough to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the missing pointer to sibling listing tools and the lack of any note on result size or pagination for accounts with many consumers.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and 'No inputs' correctly confirms the schema is empty rather than leaving the agent wondering whether an account or inbox argument is expected. Nothing further could be added.

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 a specific verb and resource ('see the durable event consumers') plus account-level scope, so the agent knows this is a listing operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling cooper_list_event_subscriptions, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The opening 'Use this to see...' implies when to use it, and the visibility rules hint at when the tool is the right lens (inbox-scoped vs account-wide key). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, even though cooper_list_event_subscriptions and cooper_poll_events/cooper_commit_events sit in the same problem space.

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.