Zambo AI Tools

zambo_universal

Universal Zambo Stack entry point. Routes any request through 100+ tools across 2 MCPs — strategy AI, code audits, lead generation, wallet intelligence, provenance certs, swarm coordination, and live market data. Free, no API key, no signup. 20 calls/tool/day on free tier. Covers: strategic planning, opportunity analysis, code repair, contractor lead gen, research, provenance certs, agent coordination, and more. For agent coordination, multi-agent workflows, and cross-layer execution, see axis_mcp_access.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`need`	Yes	Natural language description of what you need. Any length. Also accepts: message, query, prompt, input, goal, text. Example: 'How do I protect my AI agent from prompt injection?'
`format`	No	Response format. Default: json.
`context`	No	Optional extra context. Supported keys: repo_url, goal, trade, city, wallet, domain. Example: { "repo_url": "https://github.com/owner/repo" }

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses free tier, rate limits, no API key/signup, and routing behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects (calling destructive tools) or what happens on failure. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose, listing many capabilities redundantly ('covers: ... and more'). It could be trimmed to a few sentences while retaining key information. The front-loading is decent but would benefit from tighter editing.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers the tool's role, rate limits, and auth. It misses expected output format details beyond the 'format' param, and does not explain error handling or limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful aliases for 'need' (message, query, etc.) and lists supported context keys (repo_url, goal, etc.). However, it also says 'Any length' while schema enforces maxLength 2000, a minor contradiction. Overall, marginal improvement over schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a universal entry point that routes requests across many tools, and distinguishes from sibling 'axis_mcp_access' by directing agent coordination there. However, it is somewhat broad and verbose, listing many capabilities without a single concise verb-resource pair.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a specific exclusion (use axis_mcp_access for agent coordination) but does not offer broader guidance on when to use this versus other sibling tools. It implies general applicability but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context for most alternatives.

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?