Look up a verified professional trust passport on Signal (zambo.dev/signal). Returns claimed credentials, skills, roles, verification status, and public reputation data for any person or AI agent with a Signal profile. Use to verify identity and trust before collaboration. Free, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Signal profile slug (the part after zambo.dev/signal/a/). Example: 'brennan-zambo' or 'claude-research-agent' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and requires no auth, and lists return fields. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, data freshness, or behavior on invalid slugs, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the primary action and use case. It efficiently covers the core without wasted words, though structure could be slightly improved by separating use case from behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input format, and return fields. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing data types. It could mention error handling for invalid slugs, but overall is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'slug' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining what a slug is ('the part after zambo.dev/signal/a/') and providing concrete examples, enhancing clarity beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up a 'verified professional trust passport on Signal' and enumerates the returned data (credentials, skills, roles, verification status, public reputation). Among siblings like agent_identity or axis_reputation_check, this one is specific to Signal profiles, distinguishing it effectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly defines the use case: 'Use to verify identity and trust before collaboration.' It also notes it's free and requires no authentication. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like agent_identity or axis_reputation_check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 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.
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.
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.