Kopern

kopern_connect_email

Authorize an AI agent to access Gmail or Outlook. Perform read, send, and reply email actions via OAuth.

Instructions

Connect an agent to Gmail or Outlook for email tools (read_emails, send_email, reply_email). Requires OAuth in browser. Enables the service_email builtin tool.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "kopern_connect_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes	The agent ID or name
`provider`	Yes	Email provider

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.5Apr 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include only readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'Requires OAuth in browser' (user interaction) and 'Enables the service_email builtin tool' (side effect). This goes beyond the annotation and sets expectations for the user.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful information (providers, prerequisite, outcome) with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the what, the requirement (OAuth), and the result (enables service_email). It could add details about return values or failure behavior, but the essential context for use is provided.

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% with both agent_id and provider fully described in the schema. The description adds marginal value by matching 'Gmail or Outlook' to provider values, but it does not enrich parameter meanings beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Connect an agent to Gmail or Outlook'), the resource (agent), and the purpose (email tools). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the email providers and related tools (read_emails, send_email, reply_email), making it unique among the connect_* siblings.

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 description implies situational use by saying 'for email tools' and 'Enables the service_email builtin tool', giving clear context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names (calendar, slack, etc.) make the choice obvious.

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