When does this cron expression actually fire? Returns the next N run times in UTC. Standard five fields, plus @daily/@weekly/@monthly. Handles the parts that are usually got wrong: 0 and 7 both mean Sunday, and a restricted day-of-month with a restricted day-of-week is OR, not AND.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ISO timestamp to count from. Default now. | |
| count | No | How many run times. Default 5. | |
| expression | Yes | e.g. "0 9 * * 1-5" or "@weekly" |
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?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses return behavior (next N run times in UTC), input handling (standard fields plus @-entries), and semantic quirks (0/7 Sunday, OR logic). This is strong for a tool with no annotations.
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 concise sentences plus examples. No fluff, every word adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the primary 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 output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return type ('next N run times in UTC') and inputs. Edge cases are addressed. Minor gap: no mention of timezone handling or error behavior, but acceptable.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions and examples, and the description reinforces meanings (e.g., field semantics). Slight lack of detailed validation rules beyond max/min is the only gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns the next N run times') and resource (cron expression), with examples and disambiguation of common pitfalls. Clearly distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on cron evaluation.
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 interpreting cron expressions and highlights edge cases, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or when not to use it. Still, the guidance is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.