Zambo AI Tools

zambo_share

Share any Zambo result as a public link anyone can view — no install needed. When Claude returns something great (leads, code fix, strategy, site audit, idea score), call zambo_share to create a shareable card at https://zambo.dev/win/[id]. The link shows the result with a 'Try Zambo Free →' button — every win becomes a referral that brings new users in. Always free. No rate limit. Use it after any result worth sharing. title: short headline describing the win. tool: which tool produced it. summary: the key result in 1–3 sentences.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Optional structured data to attach (leads array, scores, audit results, etc.)
`tool`	Yes	Which Zambo tool produced the result. E.g. 'leadsignal', 'zambot_fix', 'zambo_score', 'ghost_audit_site'
`title`	Yes	Short, compelling headline. E.g. 'Found 23 HVAC leads in Phoenix' or 'Fixed React useState TypeError'
`summary`	Yes	The key result in 1–3 sentences. Should be readable standalone without needing context.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: always free, no rate limit, creates a shareable card with referral button. Does not mention destructive effects (likely none). Adequate for a simple share tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter details. Some extra marketing language ('every win becomes a referral') but not excessive. Well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Description explains the tool's context and parameter semantics well, but lacks information about the return value (the link). Since no output schema exists, this is a gap. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and description adds extra guidance for each parameter (e.g., 'title: short headline', 'summary: key result in 1-3 sentences'). Clarifies the 'data' parameter with examples.

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 action ('share'), resource ('Zambo result'), and outcome ('public link anyone can view'). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on sharing results, not producing them.

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 states when to use: after a great result from another tool. Provides examples (leads, code fix, etc.). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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?