Skip to main content
Glama

Zambo AI Tools

by dev.zambo

zambo_brief

Generate a personal intelligence brief — right now, on demand. Not generic news. Personalized to any goal, market, or focus area. Returns: one punchy headline, 3 concrete intel items, one contrarian insight nobody else is saying, and the single highest-leverage action to take today. Use when the user asks: 'what's happening today', 'morning brief', 'what should I know', 'intelligence update', 'what's the market doing', 'brief me on [topic]'. Also great before any major decision — score, strategy, or launch. Free, instant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoOptional: topic to focus on. E.g. 'AI and LLMs', 'crypto markets', 'startup funding', 'developer tools'. Default: AI, tech, startups, markets
contextNoOptional: your current project, goal, or situation. E.g. 'building a B2B SaaS for dentists', 'trading ETH', 'launching a product next week'

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states it's 'Free, instant', but does not discuss data sources, privacy, rate limits, or any potential side effects. This is adequate but lacks depth for full transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening and bullet-pointed output. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., remove 'right now, on demand. Not generic news.'), but overall it's informative and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the input usage and the exact output format. It covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly, though it could mention error handling or default behavior more explicitly.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing examples and stating default behavior for 'focus' (AI, tech, startups, markets), going beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 generates a personalized intelligence brief on demand, with specific outputs (headline, intel items, contrarian insight, action). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by emphasizing personalization and real-time generation, and while 'agent_brief' exists, this description is sufficiently unique.

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 lists triggering user queries ('what's happening today', 'morning brief', etc.) and notes it's good before major decisions. Lacks when-not-to-use and alternatives, but provides clear and actionable usage context.

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