Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
espanso-mcp

espanso-mcp

by bkaes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_match

Modify an existing Espanso text expansion by changing its trigger or replacement text in a config file to correct or revise shortcuts.

Instructions

Update an existing text expansion

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "trigger": "<trigger>"
    },
    "name": "update_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesFile containing the match
triggerYesThe trigger to update
newReplaceNoNew replacement text (optional)
newTriggerNoNew trigger text (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no note on whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the new trigger collides with an existing one, or whether the original trigger is preserved. Only the bare fact of mutation is conveyed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence is economical, but here the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, precondition, or effect statement to earn credit above baseline.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum indicate the partial-update semantics implied by the optional newReplace/newTrigger fields and the identity role of trigger.

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 each parameter (file, trigger, newReplace, newTrigger) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning, such as whether newTrigger renames in place or whether omitting newReplace leaves the replacement unchanged.

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?

States a specific verb ("Update") and resource ("an existing text expansion"), which cleanly separates it from create_match, delete_match, and list_matches. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, 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.

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 versus create_match (e.g., to rename an existing trigger) or what preconditions apply. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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