F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceCloudflare Worker that deploys an MCP server providing a single tool to return a user's timezone based on their IP address.
-
cron-collision-detector
Server Details
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: cron-collision-detector
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lazymac2x/cron-collision-detector-api
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_cron_collisionsBInspect
Detect collision and spike windows across multiple cron schedules over a time horizon.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes | Array of { id, expression } | |
| bucket_seconds | No | Collision bucket size in seconds (default 1) | |
| horizon_minutes | No | Look-ahead horizon in minutes (default 60) | |
| collision_threshold | No | Min concurrent jobs to count as collision (default 2) |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool detects collisions/spike windows but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the output format is, or how the horizon and bucket parameters affect results. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for an analysis tool.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how collision/spike windows are defined, or how to interpret the output. It is a bare-bones definition that leaves significant gaps for an analytic tool.
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 complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'multiple cron schedules' and 'time horizon,' matching the 'jobs' and 'horizon_minutes' parameters, but no further semantic enrichment is provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and clearly identifies the resource ('collision and spike windows') across multiple cron schedules over a time horizon. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'next_firings' by focusing on analysis rather than just listing next firings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus 'next_firings' or any other alternatives. The description implies use for analyzing multiple schedules but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
next_firingsAInspect
Return next N firing timestamps for a single cron expression.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many firings to return (default 5, max 50) | |
| expression | Yes |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only, pure computation operation ('Return...'). But with no annotations, it doesn't disclose details like timezone handling, cron format variations, or error behavior. It provides basic safety transparency but lacks depth.
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?
Exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words.
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 tool, purpose is clear, but without an output schema, the description should clarify return format (e.g., JSON array) and any relevant edge cases (e.g., timezone, invalid expressions). It provides minimal but acceptable context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (count is described, expression is not). The description adds the qualifier 'single' to expression but does not explain the expected cron format or provide examples. It insufficiently compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and specific resource 'next N firing timestamps' for 'a single cron expression'. This differentiates it from sibling analyze_cron_collisions, which focuses on collisions between expressions.
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?
Usage context is implied—use this to get future firing times for a cron expression. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, especially compared to the sibling analyze_cron_collisions. No guidance on when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
analyze_cron_collisions - First observed
next_firings
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: cron-monitor
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: cron-parser
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: blog
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: api-diff-monitor
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA stateless MCP server on Cloudflare Workers providing a ping tool and a CSV column summarizer, demonstrating the createMcpHandler API.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables creation and deployment of MCP servers on Cloudflare Workers, with local testing and one-command deployment.115MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for parsing natural language date/time expressions using chrono-node, with timezone-aware and configurable parsing. Deployed on Cloudflare Workers.1MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: analyze_cron_collisions works with multiple schedules to detect collision windows, while next_firings handles a single expression to produce firing timestamps. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is readable and descriptive, but the patterns differ: analyze_cron_collisions follows a verb_noun convention, whereas next_firings uses an adjective_noun structure. This inconsistency is noticeable, though the names are still intuitive.
Tool Count4/5
With only two tools, the server feels slightly thin, but the narrow, specialized purpose justifies the small surface. The tools cover both multi-schedule analysis and single-expression inspection, so the count is reasonable for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core functionality of a cron collision detector: analyzing overlapping schedules and retrieving individual firing times. A minor gap is the lack of explicit cron validation or parsing, but this is not essential for the stated purpose.