List all Espanso match files to identify available text expansion configuration sources.
List all Espanso match files
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": "list_match_files"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides none: it does not say whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List' but undeclared), what the result contains (file paths? names?), whether files are filtered by scope or config, or how directories are handled.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is not padded, though it is also arguably too short to carry the context the missing annotations leave uncovered.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should indicate what is returned and how it differs from list_matches. The key routing information an agent needs is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters that don't exist.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List ... Espanso match files'. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though the distinction from list_matches (files vs. matches) is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_matches. An agent must guess whether this is a discovery call, a prerequisite for get_config_info, or an alternative to list_matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.