Zambo AI Tools

zambo_playbook

Browse, run, fork, or submit agent playbooks — named multi-step Zambo tool workflows. A playbook chains Zambo tools together into a proven recipe (e.g. 'Competitor Teardown': zambro_analyze → zambo_score → ghost_audit_site). Call with action='featured' for curated top playbooks. action='list' for all. action='get' + id for details. action='run' + id for the full execution sequence. action='submit' to publish your own recipe. Free, no auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Playbook ID (for get/run/fork)
`name`	No	Playbook name (for submit)
`steps`	No	Array of {tool, input, output} step objects (for submit)
`action`	No	featured = curated top \| list = all \| get = by ID \| run = execution sequence \| submit = publish yours
`tools_used`	No	List of Zambo tool names used (for submit)
`author_name`	No	Your name or handle (optional, for submit)
`description`	No	What this playbook does (for submit)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses actions and mentions no auth required, but lacks details on side effects, destructive behavior, or output expectations. Still, the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, immediate action breakdown. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return values. It does not, but covers actions well. For a tool with 7 parameters and no required ones, the description is fairly complete except for output details.

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%, and description restates parameter purposes (e.g., action enum). Adds minimal value beyond schema; 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?

Description clearly states the tool manages playbooks (browse, run, fork, submit) with a specific verb and resource. It provides concrete examples like 'Competitor Teardown' and distinguishes from sibling tools (none other about playbooks).

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 details when to use each action (featured, list, get, run, submit) and mentions free and no auth required. Does not specify when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear enough given sibling tools.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?