Cooper Email

List MCP event subscriptions

cooper_list_event_subscriptions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need to see which MCP event subscriptions are watching inboxes on this account. Read-only. Requires auth. Inputs: none. Returns {object:"list", data:[{object:"event_subscription", id, name, inbox_id, inbox, callback_host, status, refresh_before, created_at, last_delivery_at, last_delivery_status, retained}]}. callback_host is the hostname only. The URL path, query, and signing secret are not returned. Newest created_at first. Ended rows stay in the list with retained true. They are kept for audit, they do not deliver, and they do not count toward the 20 subscription cap. An inbox-scoped key sees only its inbox. A key without webhook_read receives 403 permission_denied.

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": "MCP event subscriptions on the account.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Items on this page, in the order the tool description gives.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the object was created."
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Stable id of the returned object. Pass it to the matching get, update, or delete tool."
+          },
+          "inbox_id": {
+            "description": "Inbox id (inb_…) this object belongs to. Null when it applies to every inbox."
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Human-readable name."
+          },
+          "object": {
+            "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "active or ended."
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it adds real behavioral context: auth requirement, an inbox-scoped key sees only its own inbox, a key lacking webhook_read gets 403 permission_denied, callback_host is redacted to hostname only, and ended rows are retained but do not deliver or count toward the 20-subscription cap. 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint, but everything else is value the 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?

It is a single front-loaded block that opens with the selection condition and then moves through auth, ordering, retention, and errors with no filler. The enumerated return-field list slightly duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only real waste.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: trigger, auth, scoping, ordering (newest created_at first), retention semantics, cap accounting, redacted fields, and the failure mode. No behavioral gap remains even though an output schema also exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add; the description correctly states 'Inputs: none.' No further parameter detail is possible or needed.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('see which MCP event subscriptions are watching inboxes') plus scope ('on this account'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like cooper_list_event_consumers, cooper_list_webhooks, and cooper_list_events. An agent can pick this tool without opening any 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?

The 'Use this when you need to...' opener gives a clear trigger condition for selecting it. It never names the near-miss alternatives (event consumers vs. subscriptions, or the delete/register counterparts) or says when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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.