Skip to main content
Glama

Zambo AI Tools

by dev.zambo

hitl_check

Check whether a human has approved or rejected a review submitted via hitl_submit. Poll this every 5–10 seconds after calling hitl_submit. When status is 'approved', the content field contains the human's version (possibly edited — always use this, not the original). When status is 'rejected', stop the action and inform the user. When status is 'pending', wait and poll again. When status is 'expired', the review link timed out — submit a new one with hitl_submit. CALL FORMAT: hitl_check({review_id: 'uuid-from-hitl_submit'}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
review_idYesThe review_id returned by hitl_submit. UUID format.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: polling pattern, status handling, and that approved content may be edited by human. It even instructs to always use the human's version over the original. No contradictions.

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?

The description is reasonably concise for the amount of information conveyed. Each sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly tightened. It front-loads the core purpose and then details status actions.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the meaning of each possible status and the content field. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool effectively, including error handling for expired status.

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% for the single parameter 'review_id'. The description adds value by specifying the format (UUID) and source ('from-hitl_submit'), and includes a call format example that clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 tool checks approval/rejection status of a review submitted via hitl_submit, with specific verb 'Check whether a human has approved or rejected'. It distinguishes itself from sibling hitl_submit by specifying it is the polling counterpart.

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?

Provides explicit polling frequency (every 5-10 seconds) and actions for each status (use approved content, stop on rejected, wait on pending, resubmit on expired). Context is clear, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools beyond the reference to hitl_submit.

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