Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
espanso-mcp

espanso-mcp

by bkaes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_matches

List all text expansions from a specific Espanso file or all files to review and manage shortcuts.

Instructions

List all text expansions from 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": "list_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoSpecific file to list matches from (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation via 'List', but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or what a match record contains. For a bare listing tool this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse to carry the tool's full semantics.

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 simple one-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free listing tool, the description covers what and scope. It still omits return shape and pagination behavior, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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% and the single 'file' parameter is documented there as optional. The description restates the same optional-scope idea without adding format, path, or matching semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Clear verb ('List') and resource ('text expansions') with the scope stated: a specific file or all files. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_match_files by referring to expansions rather than files, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for contrast.

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 versus list_match_files, get_config_info, or any other sibling. The optional file scope is mentioned but framed as behavior, not as a decision rule. An agent must infer the usage context.

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