Zambo AI Tools

zambot_drift

Detect strategic drift — the silent divergence between what an agent was built to do and what it's actually doing. Pass the original goal and a list of current outputs/behaviors. Returns drift_score (0–100), severity (none/low/medium/high/critical), drift_vector (what changed), alignment_remaining (what's still on track), and a specific correction with priority and time-to-realign estimate. Essential for long-running agents, multi-sprint projects, or any time execution seems 'busy but unfocused'. 2 free/day. No auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No	Optional context — time elapsed, team size, sprint number, constraints (max 500 chars)
`original_goal`	Yes	The original stated goal or mission (what the agent/project was supposed to do)
`current_outputs`	Yes	List of current agent outputs, actions taken, or recent behaviors (1–20 strings, each max 500 chars). Example: ['built auth system', 'added 12 UI components', 'wrote API docs', 'fixed 40 bugs']

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 return values (drift_score, severity, etc.), constraints (2 free/day, no auth required), and the nature of the tool (analysis). Does not mention side effects or error handling.

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?

Very concise and well-structured: purpose, inputs, outputs, use cases, and limitations in 4-5 sentences. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, usage context, and limits. Minor gap: no examples or error scenarios.

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. Description reiterates inputs but adds little beyond schema, though it enriches the overall context by explaining outputs.

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 detects strategic drift with specific verb 'detect' and resource 'strategic drift'. It differentiates from siblings like axis_drift_monitor by focusing on agent behaviors and returning detailed metrics.

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?

The description specifies when to use: long-running agents, multi-sprint projects, or any time execution seems 'busy but unfocused'. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 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?