cron_parserParse a 5-field cron expression (minute hour day-of-month month day-of-week) into a plain-English description. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| expression | Yes | Cron expression, e.g. "*/15 9-17 * * 1-5" (aliases like @daily accepted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic action and the platform, but fails to disclose error handling, locale behavior, or the fact that aliases like @daily are accepted (the description actually contradicts the schema by limiting to '5-field' expressions).
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. The extra platform note is minor but does not detract from overall conciseness.
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 tool with no output schema, the description gives the basic purpose but does not describe the format of the 'plain-English description' or reconcile the '5-field' statement with the schema's alias support. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 schema covers all parameters completely, so the baseline is 3. However, the description explicitly states '5-field cron expression' while the schema says 'aliases like @daily accepted', which contradicts the schema and adds misleading information. No extra semantic value is provided.
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 the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'cron expression' with the specific output 'plain-English description'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools which are mostly calculators and converters.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when a cron expression needs parsing) and the context is clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but that is not critical given the unique sibling set.
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 are clearly distinct, but there are notable overlaps. 'hash_generator' and 'file_hash' effectively do the same thing (SHA hashing of text), and several CSV/TSV converters (csv_to_json, csv_to_sql, table_to_csv, markdown_table) have similar input handling, though outputs differ. The sheer number of converters is clear, but these near-duplicates create some ambiguity.
Names follow a generally consistent pattern: lowercase with underscores, often ending in 'converter', 'calculator', or 'generator'. A few names like 'base64', 'lorem_ipsum', and 'transliteration' deviate from the suffix pattern, but the naming style is uniform and predictable overall.
With 73 tools, this server is far over the typical well-scoped range. While the broad utility-toolkit purpose might justify a larger set, 73 is unwieldy and pushes well into 'too many' territory, making it harder for an agent to select the right tool efficiently.
The server covers a remarkably wide range of common utilities: unit conversions, calculators, text transformations, development helpers (JSON, regex, JWT, subnet), and generators. Minor gaps exist (e.g., currency converter, time zone converter), but for a general-purpose toolkit, it is largely comprehensive.