zerm

Create Webhook Inbox

inbox_create

Create a URL that receives HTTP requests for you. Point any webhook (GitHub, Stripe, CI, a form) at it and read what arrives with inbox_poll - no server, no signup, no tunnel. This is the way to be notified of something when your process is not running. Returns an id, the URL, and a separate read token: the URL is what you hand out, the token is what lets you read, so giving out the URL never gives away the contents. Holds 100 payloads of up to 64KB. Expires after 24h idle; every inbox_poll resets that clock. Max 5 per day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by revealing security semantics (URL vs read token), storage limits (100 payloads, 64KB), idle expiry (24h, reset by inbox_poll), and daily creation limit (5/day). This is rich behavioral context for a mutation tool with no safety annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before diving into details. While it is longer than minimal, every sentence provides essential context and no redundancy is present.

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?

From a simple, zero-parameter operation, the description covers all necessary aspects: creation, usage, reading, retention limits, expiry, safety, and quotas. No output schema exists, but the return values are described adequately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the return values (id, URL, read token) and the meaning of each, which adds value over the empty 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Create a URL that receives HTTP requests for you.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing inbox_poll for reading and inbox_delete for deletion, making it the go-to tool for creating webhook inboxes.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use it ('This is the way to be notified of something when your process is not running') and describes the workflow with inbox_poll. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All zerm tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose (counters, cron, DNS, email, fixtures, webhooks, KV, locks, name checks, regex, timers, timezone, URL checks). There is no functional overlap; even closely related tools like timer_schedule and cron_next are clearly separated by descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant naming pattern is <resource>_<action> (e.g., inbox_create, kv_get, lock_acquire, tz_convert). A few tools deviate, such as counter_next and cron_next (resource_qualifier), fixture_rows (resource_noun), and request_tool (verb_noun), but these are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 24 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 range, leaning heavy. The tools cover many independent utility categories, each with a minimal set of operations, but the overall count feels slightly excessive for a single server, though it is justified by the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The server provides complete lifecycles for its functional areas: KV (set/get/list/delete), inbox (create/poll/delete), locks (acquire/release), timers (schedule/status/cancel/verify). Each utility is self-contained, and the request_tool offers a path for extending the surface. No obvious gaps or dead ends within the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?