Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
espanso-mcp

espanso-mcp

by bkaes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_documentation

Generate reference documentation for Espanso commands from a single file or all files, saving output to a chosen path for shareable, consistent configuration notes.

Instructions

Generate documentation for Espanso commands in a specific file or all files

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_documentation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoSpecific file to document (optional, documents all if not provided)
output_pathNoWhere to save the documentation (default: espanso_config/docs/)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it omits key traits: whether it writes files to disk, what format the generated documentation takes, whether existing files at output_path are overwritten, and what happens on failure. For an operation with filesystem side effects, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and the resource before the scope qualifier. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for selection but thin on behavior. It should at least note that it writes files and roughly what the output looks like.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'specific file or all files' mirrors the schema's optional-file semantics without adding format or path syntax detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Generate documentation for Espanso commands') and states the scope ('a specific file or all files'). It is clear what the tool produces, though it makes no explicit reference to how it differs from siblings like list_matches or get_config_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint ('specific file or all files') merely restates the optional-parameter behavior already in the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools