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) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool detects collisions/spike windows but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the output format is, or how the horizon and bucket parameters affect results. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for an analysis 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 with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how collision/spike windows are defined, or how to interpret the output. It is a bare-bones definition that leaves significant gaps for an analytic tool.
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 complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'multiple cron schedules' and 'time horizon,' matching the 'jobs' and 'horizon_minutes' parameters, but no further semantic enrichment 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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and clearly identifies the resource ('collision and spike windows') across multiple cron schedules over a time horizon. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'next_firings' by focusing on analysis rather than just listing next firings.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus 'next_firings' or any other alternatives. The description implies use for analyzing multiple schedules but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
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.