Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Cooper Email

by com.cooperemail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List human owners

cooper_list_owners
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need to check who the human owners of an inbox are and whether they have confirmed, before relying on cooper_notify_owner. Read-only; requires auth. Inputs: inbox_id (required). Returns {data:[{id, email, status (pending|verified|unsubscribed), digest, created_at, verified_at, unsubscribed_at}]}. Never returns confirmation codes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inbox_idYesInbox id (inb_…), username, or full email address

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoItems on this page, in the order the tool description gives.
objectNoObject type name, such as list, message, or thread.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Owners of the inbox. Confirmation codes are never returned.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Items on this page, in the order the tool description gives.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "confirmation": {
+            "description": "State of the confirmation email that was sent."
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the object was created."
+          },
+          "digest": {
+            "description": "immediate or daily."
+          },
+          "email": {
+            "description": "The human owner's address."
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Owner id."
+          },
+          "inbox_id": {
+            "description": "Inbox id (inb_…) this object belongs to. Null when it applies to every inbox."
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "pending, verified, or unsubscribed."
+          },
+          "unsubscribed_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the owner unsubscribed, or null."
+          },
+          "verified_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the owner confirmed, or null."
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / inbox_id / description
      Added value: +"Inbox id (inb_…), username, or full email address"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description adds value with auth requirement and the negative guarantee 'never returns confirmation codes', which prevents an agent from trying to obtain codes here. It does not discuss pagination or size limits on the owners list, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the use condition, then safety, then inputs, then returns. Nothing is redundant with the schema and no sentence is 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: the trigger, the auth requirement, the status enum values, and an explicit negative constraint. Repeating the return shape is mildly redundant with the output schema but harmless.

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% and the schema already documents that inbox_id accepts an inb_ prefix, a username, or a full email address. The description only restates 'inbox_id (required)', adding no format or disambiguation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check who the human owners of an inbox are') plus the state being inspected (whether they have confirmed). This clearly separates it from sibling mutations like cooper_add_owner, cooper_confirm_owner, and cooper_notify_owner.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use this when you need to check ... before relying on cooper_notify_owner'), which names a concrete workflow dependency rather than leaving usage implicit. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. 'do not use to confirm an owner — use cooper_confirm_owner'), so it is strong 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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources