Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sui-mcp-server

sui-mcp-server

by ExpertVagabond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_owned_objects

Retrieve objects owned by a given Sui blockchain address. Filter by type (e.g., coins) and limit results.

Instructions

Get objects owned by an address.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_owned_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesOwner address
limitNoMax objects to return (default: 50)
filterNoOptional filter: { StructType: '0x2::coin::Coin<0x2::sui::SUI>' }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (e.g., 'limit' default), potential rate limits, or treatment of empty results. With no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise, one sentence with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though slightly underspecified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of a nested filter object, the description should explain return value format, default pagination limit, and filter syntax. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond 'Owner address' or 'Max objects to return', which are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Get objects') and the resource ('owned by an address'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_object' (single object) or 'get_coins' (coins only), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_coins', 'get_dynamic_fields', or 'get_balance'. The agent lacks context to decide between similar query tools.

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