Create a text expansion shortcut by defining a trigger and its replacement text in an Espanso config file, with optional variables for dynamic content.
Create a new text expansion
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | File to add the match to (default: base.yml) | |
| vars | No | Variables for dynamic content | |
| replace | Yes | The replacement text | |
| trigger | Yes | The trigger text (e.g., ':hello') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond the bare act of creation. It omits whether an existing trigger causes an error or an overwrite, which file is written by default, and whether the change is reversible or persisted.
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?
The single phrase is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, using only four words leaves it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover behavior, side effects, and error conditions, and this one covers none of them. An agent cannot tell what happens on duplicate triggers or how the new match is persisted.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the trigger, replacement text, target file, and vars semantics, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, making the 3 baseline appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('text expansion'), which maps cleanly onto create_match and distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like update_match and delete_match. It does not name any sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_match or delete_match, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer that 'create' means new entries only, with nothing about how an existing trigger is handled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.