Underground Cultural District MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool parses and explains cron expressions, but doesn't mention error handling for invalid expressions, output format details, or any limitations (e.g., supported cron syntax variants). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to grasp quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (parsing cron expressions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error responses or output structure, which are important for a parsing tool with no structured output documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'expression' fully documented in the schema as 'Cron expression, e.g., '0 9 * * 1''. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining cron syntax rules or valid formats, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('parse a cron expression and explain') and the resource ('each field means in plain English'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'convert-timestamp' or 'test-regex' by focusing on cron expression interpretation rather than conversion or validation.

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 implies usage when someone needs to understand a cron expression, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert-timestamp' for time-related operations or other parsing tools. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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