agent-utils-mcp

tool_cron_parse

Parse any cron expression into a human-readable description and compute the next N run times. Set count to control how many future executions are returned.

Instructions

Parse a cron expression: human-readable description + next N run times.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cron_expression": "<cron_expression>"
    },
    "name": "tool_cron_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`cron_expression`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 communicates the output shape but omits behavior for invalid cron expressions, timezone assumptions, and the fact that the operation is read-only. The parse-only nature makes side effects easy to infer, so this is adequate yet incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence stating the action and outputs with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple utility with an output schema, the core purpose is covered, but important invocation details are missing, such as timezone treatment, error handling for invalid expressions, and how count maps to N. The output schema likely covers return shape, but these gaps could still lead to incorrect assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties 'cron expression' to cron_expression and 'N' to the count parameter, adding some meaning beyond bare schema titles. However, it does not explicitly explain count's semantics, accepted cron format, or any constraints.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Parse' with the resource 'cron expression' and explicitly states the output: a human-readable description plus next N run times. This is unambiguous and clearly differentiates the tool from all sibling utilities, none of which relate to cron.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool—whenever a cron expression needs parsing—but provides no explicit guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools. Since none of the siblings overlap with cron parsing, the lack of alternatives is a minor gap, but there is no direct 'use this when' statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server