claude agents: --mcp-config, --settings, --plugin-dir, --add-dir flags rejected despite changelog entry in 2.1.142
Status Fixed / completed
Reported on v2.1.142
Maintainer reply ✓ Yes — claude[bot]
Activity 4 comments · opened May 15, 2026 · closed May 15, 2026
💡 Likely answer: A maintainer (claude[bot], contributor)
responded on this thread — see the highlighted reply below.
Description
The 2.1.142 changelog states:
Added newclaude agentsflags:--add-dir,--settings,--mcp-config,--plugin-dir,--permission-mode,--model,--effort, and--dangerously-skip-permissionsto configure dispatched background sessions
However, all four profile-configuration flags (--mcp-config, --settings, --plugin-dir, --add-dir) are rejected with error: unknown option at launch.
Steps to reproduce
$ claude --version
2.1.142 (Claude Code)
$ claude agents --mcp-config /dev/null
error: unknown option '--mcp-config'
$ claude agents --settings /dev/null
error: unknown option '--settings'
$ claude agents --plugin-dir /tmp
error: unknown option '--plugin-dir'
$ claude agents --add-dir /tmp
error: unknown option '--add-dir'
The flags that do work (--model, --permission-mode, --effort, --dangerously-skip-permissions) are accepted normally.
Expected behavior
All eight flags listed in the changelog should be accepted by claude agents and forwarded to sessions dispatched from the agent view.
Actual behavior
The four flags above exit immediately with error: unknown option <flag>.
Platform
- macOS (Darwin 25.5.0)
- Claude Code 2.1.142
4 Comments
Found 1 possible duplicate issue:
This issue will be automatically closed as a duplicate in 3 days.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
This is not actually a duplicate of #58624.
This issue (#59371) tests v2.1.142 — the release whose changelog declared the fix — and finds the four flags you originally reported in #58624 are still rejected with
error: unknown option. The other four flags from the same changelog entry (--permission-mode,--model,--effort,--dangerously-skip-permissions) do work, so the changelog entry is partially implemented but listed as if it were complete.So #58624 → "we don't accept these four flags." #59371 → "the changelog claims those four flags were added, but they're still rejected." The two together are evidence about the same divergence, but #59371 is specifically about the changelog-vs-runtime gap, not a re-report of the v2.1.140 bug.
The dedup bot's keyword match is reasonable but misses the framing. You may want to leave a comment here to prevent the 3-day auto-close, or ping a maintainer — otherwise this concrete v2.1.142 evidence about the partial implementation will be folded into the prior closed report and become invisible.
This issue was fixed as of version 2.1.143.
This issue has been automatically locked since it was closed and has not had any activity for 7 days. If you're experiencing a similar issue, please file a new issue and reference this one if it's relevant.