Selects the main skill group or active skill by ID from a Path of Building snapshot report, letting you inspect or validate the build's primary skill setup.
Выбрать основную группу или активное умение по id из snapshot.buildInfo отчёта.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| control | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so this tool mutates state. The description's wording 'Выбрать' (select) reads as a benign choice and says nothing about the existing main-skill selection being replaced or overwritten. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description should at least explain what state changes, but it does not.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity is almost too tight for the amount of behavior that is left unexplained, but the sentence itself wastes nothing.
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?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation context in the description. Given that, the definition should state what gets replaced, whether it requires an imported build, and what happens on an invalid id. It covers none of these.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'основную группу или активное умение' maps to the control enum (groups vs skills), and 'по id из snapshot.buildInfo' tells where the id space comes from. It still doesn't explain what the ids refer to or how they are obtained.
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 names a specific verb (Выбрать/Select) and a resource (основную группу или активное умение), and it cites the id source (snapshot.buildInfo отчёта). However, it doesn't clarify what 'selecting a main skill' functionally means for the build, and it draws no boundary against siblings such as pob_add_skill_group or pob_tree_action, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives. It mentions neither prerequisites (for example, that a build/report must already exist and contain buildInfo) nor exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.