Skip to main content
Glama

Cooper Email

by com.cooperemail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Reply to an owner task

cooper_reply_task
Destructive

Use this when you have an answer or result for a task from cooper_get_tasks and want to reply to the human in the same email thread. Requires auth. Sends a real email to the task's sender. Inputs: task_id (required), text (required; the reply body), status (optional; pending, in_progress, or done — set done when the task is finished), idempotency_key (optional; sent as the Idempotency-Key header; 1 to 256 characters of letters, digits, and - . _ ~). Without idempotency_key, calling twice sends two emails. The same key and the same request within 24 hours returns the stored message with idempotent true and does not send again. Returns {task (with updated status), message (the sent email)} on the first send. A replay returns that message. Fails with 400 invalid_idempotency_key, 409 idempotency_key_conflict, 409 idempotency_request_in_progress, 403 recipient_blocked, 403 recipient_suppressed, 403 inbox_paused, or 404 task_not_found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesReply body sent to the human
statusNoOptional new task status
task_idYesTask id returned by cooper_get_tasks
idempotency_keyNoOptional Idempotency-Key header. 1 to 256 characters: letters, digits, and - . _ ~. The same key and request within 24 hours returns the stored message.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Idempotency-Key header. 1 to 256 characters: letters, digits, and - . _ ~. The same key and request within 24 hours returns the stored message.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"Optional new task status"
    • addedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Added value: +"Reply body sent to the human"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: requires auth, sends a real email to the sender, describes the default non-idempotent behavior ('calling twice sends two emails'), the 24-hour idempotency replay semantics with 'idempotent true', the return shape, and a full list of failure codes. This is rich, actionable context for a mutation tool.

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 with the when-to-use clause, then grouped logically into auth, side effects, inputs, return, and errors. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly long as a single paragraph but not wasteful.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully accounts for auth, side effects, idempotency, return value, and error handling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further, explaining what status means operationally ('set done when the task is finished') and restating idempotency_key's constraints and 24-hour behavior, adding usage meaning over the raw schema.

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 (reply) and resource (an owner task) scoped to the same email thread, and names the sibling source 'cooper_get_tasks'. Distinguishes itself from the more generic cooper_reply_message/cooper_send_message by targeting owner tasks.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('when you have an answer or result for a task from cooper_get_tasks') and gives status guidance ('set done when the task is finished'). It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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