Skip to main content
Glama

Zambo AI Tools

by dev.zambo

code_review

Deep code review with severity-rated issues, security flags, performance notes, and specific fix suggestions. Returns: critical/high/medium/low issues with exact locations, security vulnerabilities, refactor suggestions, and an overall score. Use when user shares code and says 'review this', 'what's wrong with', 'is this secure', 'how can I improve'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe code to review. Paste directly (any language, max ~5000 chars).
focusNoReview focus: security, performance, readability, bugs, all. Default: all.
contextNoWhat the code does or what concerns you have. E.g. 'This is a payment handler, looking for security issues'.
languageNoProgramming language. Auto-detected if omitted.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses output structure and input limits (max 5000 chars), but lacks explicit mention of read-only nature or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and efficient use of words; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description covers return values and input constraints comprehensively for a code review tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds practical details (e.g., paste directly, auto-detect language, default focus) that aid usage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it performs a deep code review with specific outputs (severity-rated issues, security flags, etc.) and lists example triggers, distinguishing it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use (when user says 'review this', etc.) but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

All Zambo AI Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are several overlapping or redundant tools (e.g., leadsignal vs leadsignal_generate, multiple code audit tools, multiple trading proposal/journal tools, and several 'universal' entry points like zambo_help, zambo_ask, zambo_universal). Descriptions help, but the volume creates ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions vary across prefixes (zambo_, zambot_, axis_, presence_, trading_, etc.), with some tools using single words (weather, translate) and others using verb_noun patterns. Aliases like leadsignal_generate for leadsignal break consistency. While prefixes provide some grouping, the overall pattern is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

125 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even if the server aims to be a universal stack. This makes it overwhelming for agents to navigate and increases the likelihood of misselection. Many tools could be split into domain-specific servers.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extraordinarily comprehensive, covering agent identity, cross-layer orchestration, code analysis, content generation, legal scanning, lead generation, trading, on-chain data, and more. Nearly any common agent task is supported with multiple tools, leaving few obvious gaps.

Resources