Parse a cron expression into a human-readable description and the next scheduled run times. Exact cron semantics: use this instead of interpreting cron syntax yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Cron expression, e.g. '0 9 * * MON-FRI' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool produces and that it follows exact cron semantics. It does not detail invalid-input handling or exactly how many next run times are returned, but these are minor for a stateless parsing utility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action and outputs are front-loaded, and the usage directive follows immediately in the second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter parsing tool, the description is nearly complete. With no output schema, it could specify the exact return format and how many next run times are included, but the stated outputs give an agent enough to call it and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'expression', is fully described in the schema with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond calling it a cron expression, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb (parse), resource (cron expression), and two concrete outputs (human-readable description and next scheduled run times). It distinguishes the tool from its utility siblings by positioning it as the canonical cron parser.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool rather than interpreting cron syntax itself, providing a clear when-to-use directive. No sibling tool overlaps with cron parsing, so this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some pairs could be confused: html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf both produce PDFs, read_page vs url_screenshot both fetch a URL, and generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data both generate Dutch test data. Detailed descriptions mitigate most ambiguity, so agents can usually select correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with predictable verb_noun patterns (e.g., generate_*, validate_*, memory_*, url_*). The naming is uniform and makes each tool's function easily inferable from its name.
35 tools is a heavy surface for any MCP server, even a general-purpose toolbox. The large number of niche Dutch-specific tools (BRP, UPA, BSN, holidays) may overwhelm agents and increase selection complexity. The server could benefit from splitting into smaller, focused servers.
The server covers a wide range of utilities, but there are notable gaps: no hash generation, no json_to_csv counterpart, and the workflow sub-domain only offers list/run without create/delete. Core utilities are present, but some obvious counterparts and lifecycle operations are missing.