Explain a 5- or 6-field cron string and list the next fire times in UTC.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cron_parse"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: that results are timezone-normalized to UTC and that output includes both an explanation and upcoming fire times. It does not state how many fire times are returned, what happens with an invalid cron string, or whether the operation is side-effect free.
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 with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the secondary output. Every clause 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 stateless utility with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns (explanation plus next fire times in UTC). Minor gaps remain around the number of fire times returned and error behavior for malformed expressions.
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 schema defines zero named parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add meaning by identifying the input domain (a 5- or 6-field cron string) and the output semantics (UTC fire times), but it never names the request field for the cron expression or any count/limit control.
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 names specific verbs and a resource: 'Explain a 5- or 6-field cron string and list the next fire times in UTC.' Cron parsing is also a domain no sibling tool covers (base64, hash, jwt_decode, etc.), so an agent can distinguish it immediately.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of a '5- or 6-field cron string' scopes the input, which tells the agent when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about invalid or non-cron input, and no reference to alternatives.
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.