Skip to main content
Glama

Zambo AI Tools

by dev.zambo

email_write

Write any email — cold outreach, salary negotiation, complaints, follow-ups, apologies, pitch decks, rejections — fast and professionally. Returns subject line + full email body. Tone-matched and purpose-built. Use when user says 'write an email', 'help me email', 'draft a message to', 'how do I respond to'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toneNoTone: professional, assertive, warm, formal, casual. Default: professional.
typeNoEmail type: cold_outreach, negotiation, complaint, follow_up, thank_you, apology, pitch, rejection, inquiry. Auto-detected if omitted.
lengthNoshort (3-4 sentences), medium (2-3 paragraphs), long (full letter). Default: medium.
contextYesWhat the email is about and who it's to. E.g. 'Asking my landlord to fix heating that's been broken 2 weeks. Polite but firm.'
from_nameNoYour name for the sign-off. Optional.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'fast and professionally' but provides no details about auth needs, rate limits, side effects, or what gets destroyed/modified. This is insufficient for a tool that generates content, though it is not destructive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Highly efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers the return format. It also explains the tool's generative nature well. Only minor gap: no mention of error handling or response structure beyond subject+body.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'write' and the resource 'email' with specific examples like cold outreach and complaints. It also explains the return value (subject line + full email body). No sibling tools overlap, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

The description explicitly lists use cases: 'when user says write an email, help me email, draft a message to, how do I respond to.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but with no email-related siblings, this is sufficient.

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