cc-agent

create_cron

Schedule recurring agent tasks with custom intervals and prompts, enabling automated workflows on GitHub repos.

Instructions

Create a new cron job that fires on a recurring interval and spawns an agent.

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": {
      "interval_ms": "<interval_ms>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>",
      "schedule": "<schedule>"
    },
    "name": "create_cron"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prompt`	Yes	Task prompt to pass to the agent on each fire
`chat_id`	No	Telegram chat ID for notification routing (optional, default 0)
`enabled`	No	Whether the cron is active (optional, default true)
`repo_url`	No	Repository URL to run the cron task on (optional)
`schedule`	Yes	Human-readable schedule label, e.g. 'every 30m'
`interval_ms`	Yes	Interval in milliseconds between fires

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions firing on interval and spawning an agent, but omits key details such as whether the cron starts immediately, persistence, relationship between interval_ms and schedule, or any authentication requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity, e.g., including what the return value is.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value (e.g., cron ID or status), nor does it cover implications of setting interval_ms and schedule together. It feels under-specified for a creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the relationship between interval_ms and schedule or provide any usage tips for parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'cron job', and defines its behavior: 'fires on a recurring interval and spawns an agent.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_crons, delete_cron, and update_cron.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_cron. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or the relationship with other cron management tools.

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