Skip to main content
Glama
cornndawwg

poe2-build-planner

by cornndawwg

Calculate a build with Path of Building

evaluate_build
Read-only

Calculate Path of Building numbers for a planned PoE2 build at a character level — damage, survivability, resistances and a verdict with what to fix first.

Instructions

Real numbers from Path of Building's calculation engine for a planned build at a character level: damage against normal monsters and against a boss, seconds to kill a normal/rare monster and a boss, hits you survive from monsters and bosses, life, energy shield, resistances (with the campaign's resistance penalty and only the quest rewards earned by that level), Spirit and attributes, plus a verdict band (Comfortable / Workable / Borderline / Not yet) with the weak point and what to fix first. Level 65+ is judged for early maps, T15 and juiced T16 (and pinnacle bosses when that's the goal). With goals (from build_intake) the targets follow the player's purpose and Hardcore, end-game gear follows their budget, and goalCheck says honestly whether the build is on track, rough or not realistic yet for what they want, with options to offer. setupGaps lists what the setup is missing (unused Spirit, no boss skill, no curse/mark/warcry/banner). At level 65+ the assumed rares get resistance mods added to cap resistances, as players do in maps. Damage is broken down into hits, ignite, poison, bleed and minions. By default it assumes budget rare gear for that level (a few mid-roll mods per slot, based on terms and defence), including a budget jewel in each allocated jewel socket; pass items to use specific uniques (by name) or pasted item text in their slots (jewels too), or gear: "none" for no gear. Missing connecting passives are filled in (and listed), and "+5 to any Attribute" passives are spent where the gems and weapon need them. gearTier sets how good the assumed rares are (budget, mid or high). Extras: an amulet anoint and a helmet instill (helmetInstill, via a Raven-Touched Shard), runes, soul cores and idols (socketables), a skill from a Lament/Portent/Absent Amulet with no Spirit cost (amuletSkill), unique flasks and charms (flasks, with flasksActive), and a weaponSwap set with its own weapons, passives and skills. Timeless jewels (Heroic Tragedy, Undying Hate) aren't calculated by Path of Building for PoE2 yet. To compare options side by side, use compare_builds. Numbers are estimates: assumed gear and heuristic bands, not guarantees. Windows only for now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gearNo
avoidNo
classYesClass or ascendancy name
goalsNoThe player's goals from build_intake: stricter targets, an honest goalCheck, and budget-matched end-game gear
itemsNoSpecific items; each replaces the assumed item in its slot. Jewels go in the tree's allocated jewel sockets.
levelYes
termsNoWhat the build scales, for the assumed gear (as for stat_priorities)
anointNoNotable to anoint on the amulet (Liquid Emotions), e.g. "Potent Incantation"
flasksNoUnique flasks and charms by name (or item text); plain life/mana flasks are assumed otherwise
skillsYes
defenceNoDefence layers for the assumed gear (default: life)
weaponsNoWeapon item classes to assume, e.g. ["Staff"], ["Wand", "Focus"], ["One Hand Mace", "Shield"]
gearTierNoQuality of the assumed rares: budget (default, mid rolls), mid (good rolls, more mods), high (perfect rolls, full mods)
passivesYesMain-tree passives taken by this level (key, id or exact name); missing connectors are added
mainSkillNo0-based index of the main damage skill (default 0)
ascendancyNo
weaponSwapNoWeapon swap: a second weapon set with its own passives and skills
amuletSkillNoA skill granted with no Spirit cost by a Lament, Portent or Absent Amulet (replaces the amulet), e.g. "Herald of Ash"
socketablesNoRunes, soul cores and idols to socket, by slot
flasksActiveNoCalculate with flasks active
helmetInstillNoNotable to instill on the helmet via a Raven-Touched Shard (level 60+, expensive)
ascendancyPassivesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond it: default budget-gear assumptions, resistance capping at level 65+, connector passives being auto-filled, "Numbers are estimates: assumed gear and heuristic bands, not guarantees", the Timeless-jewel limitation, and the Windows-only constraint. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Every sentence carries real information (no filler), and the output content is front-loaded. But it is a single dense ~350-word paragraph with no grouping, which makes it hard to scan for a 22-parameter tool where the setup/extras options could have been structured. Information-dense yet structurally taxing.

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?

For a very complex 22-param tool with no output schema, the description effectively describes the return payload (damage vs normal/boss, seconds to kill, hits survived, life/ES/resistances, verdict band, goalCheck, setupGaps, damage-type breakdown). Combined with the tiered level 65+ rules and estimate caveat, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

At 73% schema coverage the schema documents most params, but the description still enriches several: it explains what `terms`/`defence` do to the assumed rares, that `gear: "none"` disables gear, that `items` slot-by-slot replace assumed gear ("jewels too"), and what `gearTier`, `anoint`, `helmetInstill`, `socketables`, `amuletSkill`, `flasks`/`flasksActive` and `weaponSwap` do. It leaves `avoid`, `ascendancy*` and `mainSkill` unaddressed, so it is above baseline but not exhaustive.

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 precise verb+resource: it returns "real numbers from Path of Building's calculation engine for a planned build at a character level", and then enumerates exactly what is computed (damage, time-to-kill, survivability, resistances, verdict band). It also routes the agent away to a specific sibling ("To compare options side by side, use compare_builds"). An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for use, naming the alternative (compare_builds) and tying inputs to build_intake ("With `goals` (from build_intake)"). However it never states when NOT to use it versus evocative siblings like check_build, optimize_build or suggest_extras, so the guidance stops short of full exclusion criteria.

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