generate_cron
Generate a cron expression from human-friendly options.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| on | No | ||
| every | Yes | Frequency | |
| month | No | Month (1-12) |
cron-parser
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed2 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / properties / on / properties / date / descriptionAdded value: +"1-31" - added
Input schema / properties / on / properties / day / descriptionAdded value: +"0=Sunday"
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the return format, validation behavior, how conflicting options are resolved, or any error cases, offering only a high-level action statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it remains clean and appropriately compact for its core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-powered. It offers no examples, constraints on parameter combinations, or explanation of what constitutes a valid cron expression, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add meaning to any specific parameter beyond the generic phrase 'human-friendly options.' With schema description coverage at 50% and nested objects like 'at' lacking descriptions, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Generate a cron expression') and the input source ('human-friendly options'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like validate_cron or explain_cron, which imply different operations on cron expressions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or mentions of sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: validating, explaining, comparing, generating, listing common expressions, and computing next runs. No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names mostly follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (diff_cron, explain_cron, generate_cron, validate_cron). 'common_crons' and 'next_runs' are slight deviations but remain readable and cohesive.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a cron utility. Each tool earns its place, covering the core domain without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of working with cron expressions: validation, explanation, generation, comparison, scheduling, and common examples. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.