cc-agent

create_plan

Spawn a dependency graph of agent jobs with one call. Each step can reference other steps via depends_on. Returns job IDs mapped to step IDs.

Instructions

Spawn a full dependency graph of agent jobs in one call. Each step can declare depends_on referencing other step IDs in this plan. Returns a summary with actual job IDs mapped to step IDs.

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": {
      "goal": "<goal>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "create_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	Yes	High-level description of what this plan achieves
`steps`	Yes	Ordered list of steps to execute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'spawns' and 'returns a summary' but does not clarify whether spawning is synchronous or asynchronous, cost implications, error behavior, or job lifecycle. Limited behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary action (spawn dependency graph) and add key features (dependencies and return format). No superfluous information.

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 complex tool with nested steps and no output schema, the description is brief. It communicates the core function but lacks detail on asynchronous behavior, result retrieval, and error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context on depends_on referencing and return mapping, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for most 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?

Description clearly states it spawns a dependency graph of agent jobs in one call, with steps referencing each other via depends_on. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_agent (single agent) and generate_workflow (different abstraction).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like spawn_agent, spawn_from_profile, or generate_workflow. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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