Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Path of Building MCP Server

Path of Building MCP Server

by urbanvcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

suggest_support_gems

Get ranked support gem recommendations for a build archetype, including DPS estimates, cost, and reasoning to guide gem selection.

Instructions

Get intelligent support gem recommendations based on build archetype. Provides ranked suggestions with DPS estimates, cost, and reasoning.

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>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_support_gems"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of suggestions to return (default: 5)
budgetNoBudget tier: 'league_start', 'mid_league', or 'endgame' (default: 'endgame')
build_nameYesBuild to analyze
skill_indexNoWhich skill to optimize (0 = main skill, default: 0)
include_exceptionalNoInclude Exceptional gem recommendations (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return content — ranked suggestions with DPS estimates, cost, and reasoning — which is valuable given there is no output schema. It never explicitly says this is a non-destructive read, whether the analysis requires an existing saved build, or any latency/limit behavior, so gaps remain.

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, front-loaded with the action and its scoping condition, with the return-value summary second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter, output-schema-less analysis tool this is nearly complete: the parameters are fully documented in schema and the description covers what comes back. The missing piece is whether build_name must match an existing build and what happens if it does not.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains count, budget tiers, skill_index, and include_exceptional. The only added meaning is loose: "build archetype" gestures at build_name and "cost" gestures at budget, but no format or interaction between parameters is clarified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get intelligent support gem recommendations") plus a scoping condition ("based on build archetype"), which clearly separates it from siblings like suggest_optimal_nodes or optimize_skill_links. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative for comparison, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the build must already exist), and no mention of when a sibling such as compare_gem_setups or optimize_skill_links would be the better call. The archetype phrase implies context but gives the agent nothing actionable about selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools