Guild Wars 1 Build Compiler
Server Details
GW1 build compiler: skill data, template code encode/decode, validation, hero roster. Read-only.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: decode_pawned_team handles team blobs, decode_template handles single codes, encode_template creates codes, get_hero/get_skill retrieve specific entities, list_heroes/search_skills provide filtered listings, and validate_build checks rules. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern consistently: decode_, encode_, get_, list_, search_, validate_. The specific nouns clearly indicate the resource or operation, and the verbs are standardized.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a build compiler. It covers decode, encode, lookup, search, and validation without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The toolset covers all core operations for a Guild Wars 1 build compiler: decoding both team blobs and single templates, encoding builds with validation, skill/hero lookup and search, and build rule validation. No obvious gaps for its stated purpose.
Available Tools
8 toolsdecode_pawned_teamDecode a paw-ned2 team templateARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Decode a paw-ned2 team build blob (the 'pwnd0001...>...<' format shared on PvXwiki team pages and by the paw-ned2 tool) into its individual builds: player/hero label, description, and each skill bar fully decoded. Whitespace and line wraps in the pasted blob are tolerated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pwnd | Yes | The full pwnd blob, starting with 'pwnd000' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that whitespace and line wraps are tolerated, and that the output fully decodes each skill bar, providing context beyond annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes necessary details without fluff. Every phrase adds value.
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?
With one parameter and the output fully described (player/hero label, description, skill bars), the description is complete for the tool's purpose. No output schema is needed given the clear explanation.
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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the blob format (e.g., 'pwnd0001...>...<') and its origin, enhancing the parameter description.
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 decodes a 'paw-ned2 team build blob' into individual builds with player/hero label, description, and skill bars. It specifies the blob format and tolerates whitespace, differentiating it from siblings like 'decode_template' which likely handles single builds.
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 implies usage when a paw-ned2 team blob is available, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'decode_template'. Sibling names suggest different purposes, but guidance is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
decode_templateDecode a skill template codeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Decode an in-game GW1 skill template code (e.g. "OwpiMypMBg1cxcBAMBdmtIKAA") into professions, attribute allocations and the 8 skills with their stats and descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The template code string |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that the tool returns structured information (professions, attributes, skills with stats), providing behavioral insight beyond annotations.
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?
One succinct sentence with an illustrative example. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and safe behavior, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. Lacks a structured output description, but not critical given simplicity.
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?
Single parameter 'code' described in schema. Description adds an example value, clarifying expected format beyond the schema's generic string description.
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?
Clearly states the tool decodes a GW1 skill template code into professions, attribute allocations, and 8 skills with stats/descriptions. Includes an example code and distinguishes from siblings like encode_template.
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?
Clear context: use this tool to decode template codes. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the description sufficiently implies the intended usage given sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
encode_templateEncode a build into a template codeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compile a build (professions, attributes, 8 skills by exact English name) into an official in-game template code. The build is validated first; on rule violations the errors are returned instead of a code. Unknown skill names return closest-match suggestions. IMPORTANT: template codes MUST come from this tool — never write or guess a code by hand, hand-written codes are invalid in-game. If unsure, verify any code with decode_template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skills | Yes | Exactly 8 skill names in bar order. Use null for an empty slot. Names must be exact English skill names. | |
| forHero | No | Set true if this bar is for a hero (PvE-only skills are flagged) | |
| primary | Yes | Primary profession, e.g. "Dervish" | |
| secondary | No | Secondary profession, e.g. "Monk". Omit or "None" for none. | |
| attributes | Yes | Attribute point allocations | |
| unlockedSkillIds | No | Optional: unlocked skill ids from a GWToolbox account export (/exportaccount). Skills outside this list are flagged as warnings. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | Official in-game template code (successful encode only) |
| valid | No | |
| errors | No | |
| warnings | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: validation first, returns errors on violation, suggests closest-match for unknown skills, and warns against hand-written codes. Consistently with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.
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?
Two sentences plus an important warning, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (assumed), description covers validation, error handling, and sibling tool interaction (decode_template). Complete for the tool's complexity.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description only mentions '8 skills by exact English name' and doesn't add significant new info about other parameters beyond the schema.
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?
Clear verb 'compile' and resource 'build into template code'. Distinguishes from siblings like decode_template and validate_build by stating it produces codes and that codes must come from this tool.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('template codes MUST come from this tool') and mentions verification via decode_template. Does not fully contrast with validate_build but provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_heroGet a Guild Wars 1 heroARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up a GW1 hero by name or by id (GWCA HeroID, matching the AccountExport plugin output). Returns profession, campaign and how the hero is unlocked. Remember: heroes can equip any skill unlocked at ACCOUNT level, but not most PvE-only skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | GWCA HeroID value | |
| name | No | Hero name, e.g. "Master of Whispers" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context about skill availability, which is not covered by annotations.
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?
Two sentences, each essential. First sentence states purpose, second adds important nuance about skill restrictions. No fluff.
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?
Returns profession, campaign, and unlock method are listed. Skill nuance is included. Annotations cover safety. No output schema needed for this simple tool.
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 description adds meaning by explaining the 'id' parameter (GWCA HeroID matching AccountExport plugin) and providing an example for 'name'.
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?
Clearly states 'Look up a GW1 hero by name or by id', specifying the verb, resource, and lookup methods, and distinguishes from siblings like list_heroes.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use (by name or id) and mentions alternative lookup methods, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings like list_heroes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_skillGet a Guild Wars 1 skillARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up a single GW1 skill by exact English name or by template skill id. Returns full stats (energy, activation, recharge, adrenaline, sacrifice), profession, attribute, campaign, elite flag and description. If the name is not found, returns the closest matches so you can correct spelling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Template skill id | |
| name | No | Exact English skill name, e.g. "Mystic Regeneration" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it returns full stats, profession, etc., and provides close matches on failure. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, return value listing, error handling. No redundant information, each sentence adds value. Well front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (stats, profession, attribute, etc.) and the fallback behavior. Could be slightly more specific about return format, but sufficient for a simple lookup.
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%, so baseline 3. The description adds nuance: name is for exact English name but triggers fuzzy fallback if not found, which is not in schema description. Also clarifies id is template skill ID.
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 it looks up a single GW1 skill by exact English name or template ID, and lists the returned data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_skills (partial name search) and get_hero (hero-related).
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 implies use for exact name or ID lookups, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It mentions a fallback to closest matches if not found, but no direct 'use this when...' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_heroesList Guild Wars 1 heroesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all GW1 heroes, optionally filtered by profession or campaign name. Useful for team-building: shows which professions are coverable by heroes and how each hero is unlocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignName | No | ||
| professionName | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent; description adds that output includes profession and unlock information, providing useful behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences: action+filters then use case. No extraneous information, efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with two optional filters and no output schema. Describes output nature (profession coverage and unlock status) sufficiently.
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 has 0% coverage; description explains both parameters are optional filters (professionName and campaignName) but does not specify valid values or formats.
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 'List all GW1 heroes' with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_hero (single hero) and search_skills.
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?
Explicitly mentions team-building as the use case and notes output relevance (profession coverage and unlock status). Lacks explicit 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.
search_skillsSearch Guild Wars 1 skillsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the full GW1 skill database with filters. professionName: Warrior, Ranger, Monk, Necromancer, Mesmer, Elementalist, Assassin, Ritualist, Paragon, Dervish, or None (common/PvE-only skills). campaignName: Core, Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the North. Returns compact records; use get_skill for full details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elite | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| campaignName | No | ||
| nameContains | No | ||
| attributeName | No | ||
| professionName | No | ||
| includePvpVersions | No | Include separate '(PvP)' skill versions |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds that results are compact, but does not clarify pagination, sorting, or other behavioral traits like the effect of the limit parameter.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Could be more structured with lists, but still efficient.
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?
Given 7 parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description only covers two filters and what the output looks like generally. Missing details on limit, elite, nameContains, and attributeName, leaving the agent underinformed for precise use.
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?
With only 14% schema description coverage, the description supplies valid values for two key parameters (professionName, campaignName), but leaves the other five parameters (elite, limit, nameContains, attributeName, includePvpVersions) without additional explanation.
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 searches the full Guild Wars 1 skill database with filters, and distinguishes from sibling get_skill by noting it returns compact records for searching.
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?
Explicitly states when to use get_skill for full details, and lists valid values for professionName and campaignName, guiding correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_buildValidate a build against GW1 rulesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check a build (professions, attributes, 8 skills by exact English name) against Guild Wars 1 rules: one elite max, profession/attribute ownership, primary attributes, duplicates, rank ranges. Returns { valid, errors, warnings } without encoding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skills | Yes | Exactly 8 skill names in bar order. Use null for an empty slot. Names must be exact English skill names. | |
| forHero | No | ||
| primary | Yes | Primary profession, e.g. "Dervish" | |
| secondary | No | Secondary profession, e.g. "Monk". Omit or "None" for none. | |
| attributes | Yes | Attribute point allocations | |
| unlockedSkillIds | No | Optional: unlocked skill ids from a GWToolbox account export (/exportaccount). Skills outside this list are flagged as warnings. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | Official in-game template code (successful encode only) |
| valid | No | |
| errors | No | |
| warnings | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable details: the exact rules checked (one elite max, profession ownership, etc.), the return shape {valid, errors, warnings}, and the fact that output is without encoding, going beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences cover purpose, scope, and return format with zero wasted words. Efficiently structured with the most critical information front-loaded.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, output schema present), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the core validation rules, parameter constraints, and return structure, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.
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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that skills must be exact English names, null for empty slots, and 8 items in bar order. It also clarifies the primary and secondary parameters with examples. This extra guidance improves usability.
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 specifies the exact verb 'Check' and resource 'build' against specific Guild Wars 1 rules, listing the rules checked. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like encode_template or get_skill by focusing on validation, not encoding or lookup.
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 clearly states the context for using this tool (validating builds against game rules) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the purpose is so specific that guidance is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!