cron-generatorBuild and parse cron expressions visually.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Parse existing expression or generate description | parse |
| expression | No | Cron expression (5-field format: minute hour day month weekday) | * * * * * |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / expressionAdded value: +{
+ "default": "* * * * *",
+ "description": "Cron expression (5-field format: minute hour day month weekday)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "parse",
+ "description": "Parse existing expression or generate description",
+ "enum": [
+ "parse",
+ "generate"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the tool's core function without disclosing output format, error handling, side effects, or any other behavioral details. This is minimal coverage for an agent that needs to know what to expect when invoking the tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that uses concise language. Every word contributes to communicating the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., parsed description or generated expression). It does not, leaving the return behavior under-specified. The parameter schema is rich, but the overall context lacks important output information that the agent would need.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'mode' and 'expression' parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 'Build and parse cron expressions visually' clearly identifies the two primary operations (build and parse) and the resource (cron expressions). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which target cron functionality.
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 clearly indicates usage for building and parsing cron expressions, and there are no sibling tools that overlap, so the use case is well-defined. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention any alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.