ToolForte

Cron Parser

parse_cron

Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse a cron expression into a human-readable description and the next scheduled run times. Exact cron semantics: use this instead of interpreting cron syntax yourself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expression`	Yes	Cron expression, e.g. '0 9 * * MON-FRI'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`valid`	No	Whether the input passed every check
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object
`nextRuns`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "nextRuns": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    },
+    "valid": {
+      "description": "Whether the input passed every check",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the two outputs (human-readable description and next scheduled run times) and claiming 'exact cron semantics.' This goes beyond the structural metadata, though it does not detail edge cases like timezone handling.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and output, then add a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema provided, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is required.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'expression' parameter, including a type, maxLength, and an example. The description does not add anything beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('a cron expression'), and the exact output ('a human-readable description and the next scheduled run times'). This clearly distinguishes parse_cron from all sibling tools, none of which perform cron parsing, and reinforces that it is the authoritative parser.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides an explicit directive: 'use this instead of interpreting cron syntax yourself,' which tells the agent when to delegate parsing rather than implementing it. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling overlaps with cron parsing, so the guideline is adequate.

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

All ToolForte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few close pairs exist (generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data, html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf, read_page vs url_screenshot), but the descriptions draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like generate_slug, validate_email, or pdf_merge. There are a few noun-style exceptions such as base64, csv_to_json, and password_strength, but no mixed casing or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable selection range for most agents. The server presents itself as a general-purpose utility toolbox, so the breadth is defensible, but the large flat tool list creates real navigation burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers common encoding, conversion, image/PDF, validation, Dutch-specific test data, memory, and workflow needs quite well. Minor gaps like PDF text extraction or JSON-to-CSV conversion exist, but agents can typically work around them.

Resources

Need Help?