Path of Building MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compare_gem_setups

Compare multiple gem configurations side-by-side for a Path of Building build to evaluate different skill options and identify the preferred setup.

Instructions

Compare multiple gem configurations side-by-side to evaluate different options. NOTE: Full DPS comparison requires Lua bridge integration (future enhancement).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "build_name": "<build_name>",
      "setups": "<setups>"
    },
    "name": "compare_gem_setups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`setups`	Yes	Array of gem setups to compare (minimum 2)
`build_name`	Yes	Build to test
`skill_index`	No	Which skill to test (default: 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a critical limitation — full DPS comparison requires a future Lua bridge — which prevents the agent from over-promising numeric output, but it does not state what the comparison actually returns today, nor any permission or side-effect profile.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place: the first states what it does, the second prevents a false expectation about DPS output.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would ideally say what a comparison yields when DPS is unavailable. The caveat about the missing Lua bridge is valuable, but the agent still cannot predict the result shape or whether setups are returned ranked or merely listed.

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%, including the nested 'minimum 2' constraint on setups and the default for skill_index, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics about naming, ordering, or how setup names are surfaced in results, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Compare multiple gem configurations side-by-side') and frames the goal as evaluating options, which is distinct from siblings like validate_gem_quality, gem_upgrade_path, or compare_builds. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so differentiation is inferable but not spelled out.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'to evaluate different options,' which tells the agent the tool is for option comparison rather than validation or upgrade planning. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an existing build, and no routing to related tools like gem_upgrade_path or validate_gem_quality.

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