Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Cooper Email

by com.cooperemail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List sub-accounts

cooper_list_workspaces
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need the sub-accounts created by the signed-in parent, including each inbox quota and how many inboxes are in use. Read-only; requires auth; no inputs. Returns {data:[{id, name, inbox_quota, account_id, api_key_prefix, inboxes_used, created_at}]}. Does not return API keys.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cooper_list_workspaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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": "Workspaces under this account. API keys are not returned.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Items on this page, in the order the tool description gives.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "account_id": {
+            "description": "Sub-account id for this workspace."
+          },
+          "api_key": {
+            "description": "Workspace API key, returned only once on create. Never repeat it in full."
+          },
+          "api_key_prefix": {
+            "description": "First characters of the workspace key, for display."
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO-8601 time the object was created."
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Workspace id."
+          },
+          "inbox_quota": {
+            "description": "Most inboxes the workspace may hold."
+          },
+          "inboxes_used": {
+            "description": "Live inboxes in the workspace."
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Human-readable name."
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Object type name, such as list, message, or thread."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 still adds real context beyond that: it requires auth, takes no inputs, and explicitly states that API keys are not returned, which pre-empts a plausible wrong expectation for a tool that exposes api_key_prefix.

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 two compact sentences with scope front-loaded, and it avoids padding. The inline return-field enumeration is slightly mechanical given an output schema exists, but it is short and the closing 'Does not return API keys' earns its place.

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 with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, the required auth, that no inputs are taken, and one important negative guarantee about return contents.

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 nothing is missing from the schema. The description corroborates this with 'no inputs', leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke it.

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 and resource: list sub-accounts created by the signed-in parent, and it adds useful detail (inbox quota and inboxes_used per record). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as cooper_list_inboxes or cooper_get_workspace, and the name/title mismatch (workspaces vs sub-accounts) is only resolved implicitly.

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 the sub-accounts created by the signed-in parent' establishes a clear context for selection. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., fetching one sub-account by id), so the agent must infer that boundary from sibling names.

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