Skip to main content
Glama

Guild Wars 1 Build Compiler

by io.github.Graphmaxer

Encode a build into a template code

encode_template
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forPvpNoSet true for a PvP character's bar. PvP versions of split skills are only valid when this is true, and a PvP bar is expected to use them.
skillsYesExactly 8 skill names in bar order. Use null for an empty slot. Names must be exact English skill names.
forHeroNoSet true if this bar is for a hero (PvE-only skills are flagged)
primaryYesPrimary profession, e.g. "Dervish"
secondaryNoSecondary profession, e.g. "Monk". Omit or "None" for none.
attributesYesAttribute point allocations (template format caps this at 15 entries)
unlockedSkillIdsNoOptional: unlocked skill ids from a GWToolbox account export (/exportaccount). Skills outside this list are flagged as warnings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoOfficial in-game template code (present on success)
validNofalse when the build resolved but is illegal; absent on the other two shapes
errorsNoPresent (non-empty) when resolution failed or the build is invalid
warningsNoAdvisories accompanying a successful code

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: the build is validated first and errors are returned on rule violations, unknown skill names produce closest-match suggestions, and hand-written codes are invalid in-game. This significantly enhances understanding of the tool's error handling and constraints.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence defining the core function, a sentence on validation/error behavior, and an IMPORTANT callout about hand-written codes. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential behavior: input composition, validation, error handling, and relationship to decode_template. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists, and it adequately orients the agent on when and how to use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that skills must be exact English names and mentions 'professions, attributes, 8 skills' but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what schema already states.

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's function: 'Compile a build (professions, attributes, 8 skills by exact English name) into an official in-game template code.' It uses a specific verb ('compile'), identifies the resource ('template code'), and lists the key inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_template, which is explicitly mentioned as the verification counterpart.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: template codes MUST come from this tool, never hand-write or guess codes, and if unsure, verify with decode_template. This establishes clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios, and names the alternative tool for verification.

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

All Guild Wars 1 Build Compiler toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: decoding team blobs vs. single templates vs. encoding; looking up a single hero vs. listing heroes; exact skill lookup vs. searching. Cross-references between similar tools (e.g., decode_pawned_team vs. decode_template) make boundaries clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: decode_*, encode_template, get_*, list_heroes, search_skills, validate_build. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for a build compiler: decoding/encoding, validation, and lookup utilities for skills and heroes. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: decode single/team, encode single template, validate, plus skill/hero discovery. A notable gap is the lack of a tool to encode a full team blob (paw-ned2 format), which would be the natural counterpart to decode_pawned_team, but agents can work around this by encoding individual templates.

Resources