Skip to main content
Glama

Cooper Email

Notify the human owner

cooper_notify_owner
Destructive

Use this when the agent should tell its human owner(s) about progress, completion, a blocker, or a question by email. Requires auth. Sends a status email to every verified owner of the inbox (daily-digest owners get it in the next digest). Send a short title of 5-8 plain words that says what happened or what you need (e.g. 'Launch copy drafted', 'Pick a launch headline'); the default concise email shows the title alone as the line next to the status pill. text is one optional-detail sentence; without a title Cooper uses the first sentence of text, cut at a clause, never with an ellipsis. Do not include deploy ids (dpl_…), commit shas, inbox ids, or other internal ids. Inputs: inbox_id (required), kind (required; progress, done, needs_input, or error), text (required; the update), title and status (optional short labels), task_id (optional; reuse it so all updates for one job stay in the same email thread), links (optional [{label, url}] with https URLs the owner can open), client_id (optional idempotency key). Returns {id, kind, task_id, text, created_at, deliveries:[{email, mode, status (sent|queued|skipped|failed), reason}]}. If no owner is verified yet, nothing is sent: check cooper_list_owners.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesType of update
textYesOne short detail sentence for the human. Shown in the single-update email and the detailed style. No deploy ids, commit shas, or internal ids.
linksNoOptional links shown in the email
titleNoRecommended. 5-8 plain words, e.g. "Launch copy drafted". Concise email shows this alone.
statusNoShort status label, such as running or blocked
task_idNoGroups updates into one email thread
inbox_idYesInbox id (inb_…), username, or full email address
client_idNoOptional idempotency key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"One short plain-language sentence for the human. No deploy ids, commit shas, or internal ids."New value: +"One short detail sentence for the human. Shown in the single-update email and the detailed style. No deploy ids, commit shas, or internal ids."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Optional short title"New value: +"Recommended. 5-8 plain words, e.g. \"Launch copy drafted\". Concise email shows this alone."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"The update for the human"New value: +"One short plain-language sentence for the human. No deploy ids, commit shas, or internal ids."
  3. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional idempotency key"
    • addedInput schema / properties / inbox_id / description
      Added value: +"Inbox id (inb_…), username, or full email address"
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"Type of update"
    • addedInput schema / properties / links / description
      Added value: +"Optional links shown in the email"
    • addedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Added value: +"The update for the human"
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Optional short title"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses auth requirements ('Requires auth'), fan-out behavior ('every verified owner of the inbox', with daily-digest owners deferred to the next digest), the no-op failure mode when no owner is verified, and the prohibition on internal ids (dpl_, commit shas, inbox ids). That is substantial behavioral context the annotations do not 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 front-loaded with the usage condition and every sentence carries information (constraints, fallbacks, return shape), with no filler. It is a single dense paragraph mixing usage, behavior, params, and return values, which slightly hurts scannability, so not a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description spells out the return object ({id, kind, task_id, text, created_at, deliveries:[...]}) including per-delivery status values. Combined with full parameter coverage and the auth/fan-out notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the title format (5-8 plain words with examples), the fallback when title is omitted ('Cooper uses the first sentence of text, cut at a clause, never with an ellipsis'), and task_id's role in threading updates into one email. These are behaviors the schema descriptions alone do not state.

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 description names a specific verb and resource ('tell its human owner(s)... by email') and enumerates the trigger cases (progress, completion, blocker, question). This distinguishes it from the messaging siblings like cooper_send_message or cooper_reply_message without the agent needing to open 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?

It gives clear when-to-use context ('Use this when the agent should tell its human owner(s) about progress, completion, a blocker, or a question') and routes the failure case explicitly ('If no owner is verified yet, nothing is sent: check cooper_list_owners'). It stops short of explicitly excluding the general-purpose send tools, so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.