Parse a cron expression (5 fields) and explain the schedule. Computes and shows the next 5 run times in ISO format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Cron expression with 5 fields: minute hour day-of-month month day-of-week (e.g. "*/15 * * * *") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core behavior: parse the expression, explain the schedule, and compute the next 5 run times in ISO format. However, it omits details such as timezone handling, behavior on invalid expressions, or whether standard extensions like @daily are supported, which would make behavior more transparent.
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?
Two short sentences convey the input, the operation, and the output format with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds necessary 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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what input to provide and what output to expect (schedule explanation and next 5 ISO run times). It could be slightly richer by describing the shape of the returned schedule explanation, but it is adequate for correct invocation.
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 already provides a fully descriptive parameter definition with a concrete example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond reaffirming that the expression has 5 fields, which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation.
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 ('Parse') and a clear resource ('a cron expression (5 fields)'), then states exactly what it produces: a schedule explanation plus the next 5 run times in ISO format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, all of which handle unrelated formats or operations.
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 makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent knows to use it whenever a cron expression needs parsing and next-run calculation. No sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, so explicit alternative routing is unnecessary. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is unambiguous.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—encoding, color conversion, parsing, hashing, JWT validation, Markdown rendering, regex testing, SemVer operations, diffing, URL analysis, and UUID generation. The four SemVer tools are related but cleanly separated by action (bump vs compare vs max vs satisfies), and descriptions clarify their boundaries.
Tools overwhelmingly follow an object_verb snake_case convention (base64_encode, csv_parse, regex_test, semver_bump). Semver_max and semver_satisfies deviate slightly from the imperative verb pattern, but the overall naming is predictable and searchable.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 tool range but each utility earns its place for a general-purpose developer toolbox. No tools feel redundant, and the count remains manageable because the names and domains are highly scannable.
The toolkit covers a solid breadth of common developer utilities: encodings, common formats (JSON, CSV, Markdown), hashing/JWT, regex, SemVer, cron, URL, UUIDs, and diffing. It lacks some fringe converters such as YAML/XML parsing or HTML escape/unescape, but these are minor gaps that agents can work around rather than dead ends.