Guild Wars 1 Build Compiler

Validate a build against GW1 rules

validate_build

Read-onlyIdempotent

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 — use encode_template instead when you also want the template code, since it runs these same rules and refuses on any error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`forPvp`	No	Set true for a PvP character's bar (PvP versions of split skills are only valid then).
`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 (template format caps this at 15 entries)
`unlockedSkillIds`	No	Optional: unlocked skill ids from a GWToolbox account export (/exportaccount). Skills outside this list are flagged as warnings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`valid`	Yes	Whether the build is legal in-game
`errors`	Yes	Blocking problems; empty when valid
`warnings`	Yes	Non-blocking advisories

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns {valid, errors, warnings} and does not encode. It also implies a non-refusing behavior versus encode_template. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and no wasted words. The second sentence concisely provides the return shape and directs to an alternative tool.

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?

The description covers the validation rules, return structure, and the relationship to a sibling tool. With rich schema and output schema present, nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly (e.g., exact English names, null for empty slot, rank 0-12). The description adds no new parameter detail beyond naming build components, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the exact resource (build against GW1 rules), listing the validation categories. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling encode_template, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('without encoding') and when-not-to-use guidance by directing to encode_template for template-code needs, noting that encode_template runs the same rules and refuses on errors. This is clear and actionable.

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 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

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.

Validate a build against GW1 rules

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources