cron-parser
Server Details
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: cron-parser
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lazymac2x/cron-parser-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 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing common crons, diffing, explaining, generating, getting next runs, and validating. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., explain_cron, validate_cron), which is predictable and clear.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a cron expression utility, covering creation, validation, explanation, comparison, and scheduling.
The tool surface covers all common cron-related tasks: listing, explaining, generating, validating, comparing, and computing future runs. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
6 toolscommon_cronsAInspect
List commonly used cron expressions with descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation (listing) but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. For a simple listing tool, transparency is adequate but could be improved.
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 with no unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully covers its functionality given the context. Complements sibling tools well.
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?
No parameters exist (input schema empty, 100% coverage). Baseline 4 for zero parameters; description adds no parameter info but is not needed.
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 'List commonly used cron expressions with descriptions.' The verb 'List' and resource are explicit, and the tool is distinct from siblings like explain_cron, generate_cron, next_runs, validate_cron.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention its role as a reference or introduction to cron expressions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
diff_cronAInspect
Compare two cron expressions and return per-field differences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | Yes | First cron expression | |
| second | Yes | Second cron expression |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description indicates a non-destructive comparison, but lacks explicit assurance of no side effects. Annotations absent, so description carries burden; minimal disclosure.
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 sentence with 9 words, no redundancy, front-loaded with action and outcome. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter comparison tool, the description fully explains purpose and output. No output schema required; low complexity allows completeness.
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 100% with clear field descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'compare two expressions'. Baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states verb 'compare' and resource 'cron expressions', and specifies output 'per-field differences'. Distinguishes from siblings like explain_cron and validate_cron.
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?
Implies usage for comparing two cron expressions, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like common_crons or explain_cron. No when-not or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_cronAInspect
Explain a cron expression in human-readable form and show parsed fields. Supports @presets like @daily, @weekly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Cron expression (e.g. "*/5 * * * *" or "@daily") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action (explain, show parsed fields) and support for presets, but does not mention any potential side effects (likely none), rate limits, or return format. 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value, and there is no irrelevant information.
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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and behavior. It could hint at the structure of parsed fields, but overall it is complete.
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 coverage for the single parameter 'expression' is 100%. The description adds that support for @presets, which is already hinted in the schema example. No additional semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 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 tool's purpose: explaining a cron expression in human-readable form and showing parsed fields. It also mentions support for @presets, distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate_cron' or 'validate_cron'.
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 understanding cron expressions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common_crons' or 'next_runs'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_cronBInspect
Generate a cron expression from human-friendly options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| on | No | ||
| every | Yes | Frequency | |
| month | No | Month (1-12) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention output format, error handling, or constraints on parameter combinations. The agent gains no understanding of side effects or limitations beyond what the schema implies.
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?
A single sentence that is perfectly concise with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the essential information.
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 is too minimal for a tool with four parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. It lacks examples, parameter relationships, or any hint of valid combinations. An agent cannot reliably form correct invocations from this alone.
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 50%, and the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. It does not explain how 'at', 'on', or 'month' interact with 'every', nor does it clarify the semantics of nested objects. The schema itself provides basic information, so the description provides no extra value.
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 'Generate' and the resource 'a cron expression', and it specifies the input as 'human-friendly options'. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_cron or explain_cron, which operate on existing expressions.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as common_crons or validate_cron. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
next_runsAInspect
Get the next N scheduled run times for a cron expression. Uses standard Unix OR semantics for day fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ISO 8601 start date (default: now) | |
| count | No | Number of next runs to return (1-20, default 5) | |
| expression | Yes | Cron expression |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait (Unix OR semantics for day fields) but does not disclose other important aspects such as read-only nature, timezone handling, or response format. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral detail. No extraneous information is included, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral nuance. However, it omits details like return format (e.g., array of ISO 8601 strings), timezone handling, and whether 'from' defaults to now as UTC. These gaps are minor but keep it from being fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the cron expression follows Unix OR semantics, which impacts interpretation of day fields. This contextual detail goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, earning a 4.
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 tool gets the next N scheduled run times for a cron expression. It uses specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('scheduled run times'), and the mention of Unix OR semantics differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_cron or validate_cron.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or contexts where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_cronAInspect
Check if a cron expression is valid. Returns {valid: bool, error?: string}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Cron expression to validate |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({valid: bool, error?: string}), which is helpful, but does not explicitly confirm that the tool has no side effects or state changes. The validation nature suggests read-only, but not stated.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for return type. Every word earns its place with no waste or redundancy.
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 validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It could be more complete by explaining what constitutes a valid cron expression, but it is sufficient for most use cases.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that the expression is validated. No format, constraints, or examples are 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 ('Check if...is valid') and identifies the resource ('cron expression'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'explain_cron' or 'generate_cron' by focusing solely on validity.
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 when to use the tool: to check validity of a cron expression. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling names imply they serve different purposes.
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!