poe2-build-planner

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a build guide page

create_build_guide

Generate and open a full Path of Exile 2 build guide as a local web page with phase tabs, passive tree, planner files, and viability checks.

Instructions

Write a full build guide as a local web page and open it in the player's browser (like a Maxroll or Mobalytics guide): overview, strengths and weaknesses, a tab per phase (skills and supports, key passives with levels, ascendancy, gear to look for, quest rewards, a checklist before moving on, when to switch setups), automatic checks per phase, a zoomable passive tree highlighting each phase, and a downloadable Build Planner file per phase. When the Path of Building engine is available, each phase also gets real numbers and a verdict band at its last level. Use after planning; ask the player first. passivePlan is the plan_passive_tree output (id + takeAtLevel); phases split it by level. Give a phase its own passives only when it respecs. Gear slots use stat_priorities names (Ring, Wand, Focus…).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`open`	No	Open in the browser (default true)
`avoid`	No
`class`	Yes	Class or ascendancy name
`goals`	No	The player's goals from build_intake: stricter targets, an honest goalCheck, and budget-matched end-game gear
`notes`	No
`terms`	No	What the build scales, for the assumed gear in Path of Building numbers
`phases`	Yes
`defence`	No	Defence layers for the assumed gear (default: life)
`summary`	Yes	The play fantasy and how the build delivers it, in plain language
`weapons`	No
`gearTier`	No	Assumed gear quality for every phase's numbers; wins over goals.budget
`playstyle`	No
`strengths`	No
`ascendancy`	No
`weaknesses`	No
`leagueStart`	Yes
`passivePlan`	Yes
`ascendancyPassives`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0-betaOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / gearTier

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Assumed gear quality for every phase's numbers; wins over goals.budget",
+  "enum": [
+    "budget",
+    "mid",
+    "high"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.5.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses externally visible side effects (writes a local web page, opens the browser), a conditional behavior ('When the Path of Building engine is available'), and a consent requirement. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior, file location, or error handling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action and artifact, followed by an accurate enumeration of contents, then two compact sentences for usage and parameter wiring. Dense but every clause maps to a real feature or schema field; no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 19-parameter, deeply nested tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the artifact and the critical plan-to-phases relationship but leaves roughly two-thirds of the parameters (class, leagueStart, goals, gearTier conflicts, defence, terms) to a sparse schema. Adequate but visibly incomplete at this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is low (37%), but the description compensates for the highest-value parameters: passivePlan is identified as the plan_passive_tree output (id + takeAtLevel), phases are said to split it by level, phase-level passives are only for respecs, and gear slots are tied to stat_priorities names. Many other parameters (name, class, leagueStart, summary, weapons, defence, terms) remain unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Write a full build guide as a local web page and open it in the player's browser'), then enumerates the guide's contents precisely (phases, checks, zoomable passive tree, downloadable Build Planner). The artifact is clearly distinct from siblings like export_build or evaluate_build.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit timing and a consent gate: 'Use after planning; ask the player first.' That tells the agent this is a terminal step requiring confirmation. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative (e.g. export_build) or state when NOT to use this tool.

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

Create a build guide page

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools