Everloot: WoW Forever data

Read a talent share code

talent_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Decodes an Everloot talent share code (EL1----, or a calculator link carrying one after #plan=) against the class's trees: the talents and ranks it holds, points per tree, the lowest level that can hold it, and every problem in plain words: a code made on another build, nodes the tree does not have, ranks cut back, points the rules would not place. Nothing is dropped silently. Use it when given a share code or a calculator link; use talent_tree to read the trees themselves. Game-file data, found in game files, unconfirmed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "talent_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The share code, or a link that carries one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	False when the code could not be read at all; message says why.
`url`	No	The build's own link on everloot.app, absolute: the calculator opened on this plan, with a preview card for sharing.
`link`	No	The calculator with this plan loaded.
`class`	No
`label`	Yes
`byTree`	No
`credit`	Yes
`message`	No
`talents`	No
`minLevel`	No	The lowest level that can hold this many points.
`problems`	No	One sentence each. Empty means the code loaded exactly as made.
`className`	No
`codeBuild`	No	The game build the code was made on.
`treeBuild`	No	The build of the trees it was read against.
`pointsSpent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The build's own link on everloot.app, absolute: the calculator opened on this plan, with a preview card for sharing.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that output includes per-tree point counts, minimum holding level, and every problem in plain words, and that 'Nothing is dropped silently' — implying partial-result reporting rather than hard failure. It also flags data provenance ('found in game files, unconfirmed'), a caveat no structured field carries. Slightly short of 5 because it doesn't say what distinguishes a fatal invalid-code path from the reported problems.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the trigger and alternative. The first sentence is a long accumulation of parentheticals and clauses that takes effort to parse, but each clause (input forms, output contents, error reporting) carries information the agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a decode-and-validate tool with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: accepted input forms, what the result contains, that problems are reported rather than thrown, the sibling alternative, and a data-confidence caveat.

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?

With one fully described parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by explaining the internal structure of the code string (class, spec, build, payload segments) and that a calculator link with #plan= is accepted — meaning the schema's generic 'share code, or a link that carries one' does not provide. No other parameters exist to document.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Decodes') and resource ('an Everloot talent share code'), spells out the accepted input formats (EL1-<class>-<spec>-<build>-<payload> or a link with #plan=), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling talent_tree. An agent can distinguish it from every other sibling without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it when given a share code or a calculator link') and an explicit alternative with its condition ('use talent_tree to read the trees themselves'). This is the when/when-not/alternative structure at full strength.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Everloot: WoW Forever data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.