cron-collision-detector
Server Details
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: cron-collision-detector
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lazymac2x/cron-collision-detector-api
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one analyzes collisions across multiple schedules, the other provides firing times for a single schedule. No ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: 'analyze_cron_collisions' and 'next_firings'. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Two tools is minimal but appropriate for a specialized server focused on cron collision detection. It covers the core functionality without being too sparse.
The server covers the main use cases (collision detection and single schedule firing times) but lacks additional helpful tools like expression validation or time range listing. The surface is narrow but not severely incomplete.
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_cron_collisionsAInspect
Detect collision and spike windows across multiple cron schedules over a time horizon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes | Array of { id, expression } | |
| bucket_seconds | No | Collision bucket size in seconds (default 1) | |
| horizon_minutes | No | Look-ahead horizon in minutes (default 60) | |
| collision_threshold | No | Min concurrent jobs to count as collision (default 2) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only analysis by using 'detect,' but lacks details about precision, side effects, or operational constraints. The coverage is adequate but minimal.
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 with no fluff, efficiently conveying the core purpose.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief and leaves ambiguity about what 'spike windows' are and how results are returned. It provides the essential purpose but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand usage.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 the verb 'detect' and the resource 'collision and spike windows across multiple cron schedules over a time horizon,' differentiating it from the sibling tool 'next_firings' which likely just lists next firing times.
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's purpose is clear, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'next_firings' or any alternative, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
next_firingsBInspect
Return next N firing timestamps for a single cron expression.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many firings to return (default 5, max 50) | |
| expression | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description lacks details on behavior such as error handling, return format, or read-only nature, which is important for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
Single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose but is missing details on error handling and return value structure, though the tool is simple with only 2 parameters and no output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (only 'count' described). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the name, failing to explain the 'expression' parameter format or constraints.
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 'return', resource 'next N firing timestamps', and scope 'for a single cron expression', distinguishing it from sibling 'analyze_cron_collisions'.
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 usage for getting upcoming firing times but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!