cc-agent

work_on_issue

Automatically fetch a GitHub issue, assign it to an autonomous coding agent, and monitor progress through completion.

Instructions

Fetch a GitHub issue, post a pickup comment, and spawn a cc-agent to work on it.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "work_on_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repo in owner/repo format
`issue_number`	Yes	Issue number to work on
`extra_context`	No	Additional context to pass to the agent (optional)
`max_budget_usd`	No	Max USD budget for the agent (optional, default 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description outlines the three-step behavior, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it claims the issue) or required permissions. The behavioral sequence is clear but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with 14 words, front-loaded with the main action 'Fetch'. Every phrase is necessary and concise.

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?

Despite clear actions, the description omits important context like return type (e.g., job ID), error conditions, and prerequisites. For a tool that spawns an agent, this is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool fetches a GitHub issue, posts a pickup comment, and spawns a cc-agent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comment_on_issue (only comments) and spawn_agent (only spawns).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only lists actions without context.

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