Path of Building MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_optimal_links

Generates optimized support gem combinations for a Path of Building skill based on budget and optimization goal, then outlines a step-by-step upgrade path.

Instructions

Auto-generate the best support gem combination for a skill based on budget and optimization goal. Provides step-by-step upgrade path.

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>",
      "link_count": "<link_count>"
    },
    "name": "find_optimal_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`budget`	No	Budget tier: 'league_start', 'mid_league', or 'endgame' (default: 'endgame')
`build_name`	Yes	Build to optimize
`link_count`	Yes	Number of links (4, 5, or 6)
`skill_index`	No	Which skill to optimize (default: 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Auto-generate' hints at a computed read-only recommendation and 'step-by-step upgrade path' hints at output shape, but nothing states whether it reads or mutates the stored build, what happens if build_name is unknown, or how expensive the computation is.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The only waste is the 'optimization goal' clause, which points at something the schema does not offer.

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 four-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and gives a minimal output hint ('upgrade path'). It falls short on routing versus siblings and on behavioral context, which an agent needs given the absence of annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents budget, build_name, link_count, and skill_index with defaults and value hints; baseline 3 applies. The description adds little parameter detail and even references an 'optimization goal' that has no corresponding parameter, which is mildly misleading rather than helpful.

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: 'Auto-generate the best support gem combination for a skill.' It also scopes the optimization by budget and goal. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as optimize_skill_links, analyze_skill_links, or gem_upgrade_path, leaving the agent to guess which generator to call.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. With at least four sibling tools that sound like link optimization, an agent gets no signal about routing between them; usage is only loosely implied by the summarised purpose.

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