Get ready-to-paste install configs and spread kits for zambo.dev — Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, agent.json, tweet, README, and more. Use platform param (claude, cursor, windsurf, tweet, readme, discord, all). Free, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional: what you're building or who you're sharing with. | |
| platform | No | Target platform or format. claude → claude_config, cursor → cursor_config, etc. Default: 'all'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is free and requires no authentication, which is positive. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or whether it is a read-only operation. Given the simple nature, the transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and supported platforms, and the second provides usage detail and cost/auth info. There is no waste.
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?
The tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description explains the platform parameter but not the context parameter's effect or the output format. It lacks details on what exactly is returned (text, list, etc.) and any pagination or limitations. For a simple tool, it partially covers needs but could be more 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters are described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, simply repeating that platform can be set. Since the schema already documents the parameters well, the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's function: providing ready-to-paste install configs and spread kits for multiple platforms. The verb 'get' and resource 'configs' are specific. While it lists supported platforms, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like zambo_share, but the purpose is clear.
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 mentions using the platform parameter and notes that the tool is free with no auth required. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like other config or sharing tools. The usage context is partially addressed but lacks exclusions.
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.