next_runsCompute the next N run times (UTC ISO-8601) for a cron expression. Optionally start from a given time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Optional ISO-8601 start time (default: now). | |
| count | No | How many upcoming runs to return (1-50, default 5). | |
| expression | Yes | A cron expression or @alias. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "count": 5,
+ "expression": "0 9 * * 1-5"
+ },
+ {
+ "count": 10,
+ "expression": "@hourly",
+ "from": "2024-01-15T14:30:00Z"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the output timezone (UTC ISO-8601) and optional start time, which provides some value beyond annotations, but does not disclose error handling or edge cases like invalid cron expressions. This meets the baseline for a safe read-only tool.
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, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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?
The tool is simple and the description fully captures its behavior: computing N future run times with an optional start. Schema covers parameter constraints, and annotations cover safety. No output schema is needed because the tool's return type is self-evident from the description.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces that the start time is optional, but adds limited new meaning beyond schema details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.
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?
Description clearly states it computes next run times for a cron expression, using specific verb ('Compute') and output format (UTC ISO-8601). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_cron, which likely explains cron syntax rather than calculating future run times.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_cron. The description only mentions an optional start time parameter, but does not explain use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool clusters have blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, making them indistinguishable, and the five Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market opportunities with overlapping concerns. The meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) and entity tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) are better separated by their descriptions, but the identical beta/stable pair alone forces a low score.
All tool names use snake_case, but the naming conventions are mixed: some follow verb_noun (describe_cron, next_runs, validate_claim), some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and many are brand-prefixed noun phrases (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, bet_research). The pattern is readable and mostly predictable by prefix/domain, but there is no single consistent convention across the set.
33 tools is above the reasonable threshold for a focused server, and the count is especially disproportionate for a server named 'Crontab': only 2 tools (describe_cron, next_runs) actually deal with cron, while roughly 24 tools are Pipeworx data-query, prediction-market, and memory utilities unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. The bulk of the tool surface feels like it belongs on a different server, making the count mismatched with the stated scope.
For a cron-focused server, the surface is incomplete: it can describe cron expressions and compute next runs, but has no tool to create, update, or delete a scheduled cron job — subscribe/unsubscribe manage data-event subscriptions, not cron schedules. The Pipeworx data side is broad (lookup, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, research), but that completeness belongs to a different domain and does not rescue the cron purpose implied by the server name.