zerm

Verify Callback Origin

timer_verify_origin

One-time consent handshake before timers can deliver to an origin. Prerequisite: an HTTPS endpoint you control that can read a request body and echo part of it back - if you have no endpoint of your own, timers are not usable yet. zerm POSTs {type:"zerm.origin_verification", token, service, instructions} to the URL; the endpoint must answer 2xx with the token echoed anywhere in the response body. The URL must be https on the default port, publicly reachable, with no credentials and no private/reserved IP. Verification covers the whole origin (scheme+host) and persists, so this is once per origin, not once per timer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	An https URL on an origin you control, e.g. "https://example.com/hooks/zerm".

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, detailing the POST payload structure, the required 2xx response with echoed token, strict URL requirements (https, public, no credentials, no private IPs), and persistence per origin. This provides vital behavioral context not captured by readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then expands into necessary details. Every sentence contributes essential information about the handshake, requirements, or scope, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, handshake mechanics, endpoint constraints, and scope of verification (per origin, persistent). It lacks only an explicit failure mode description, but the 2xx requirement implicitly covers that.

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 schema already describes the 'url' parameter with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful constraints on the URL (default port, public reachability, no credentials, no private/reserved IP), which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the basic type and format.

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 performs a one-time consent handshake for timer callback origins, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like timer_schedule by explaining it is a prerequisite for timers to deliver to an origin.

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 provides clear context by explaining the prerequisite (an HTTPS endpoint you control) and explicitly states that timers are not usable without such an endpoint. It lacks an explicit named alternative but effectively communicates when this tool is necessary.

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?