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

sui-mcp-server

by ExpertVagabond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

request_faucet

Request SUI tokens from the faucet for devnet or testnet addresses to fund development and testing.

Instructions

Request SUI from the faucet (devnet/testnet only).

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": "request_faucet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesAddress to fund

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the action ('Request SUI from the faucet') but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on repeated requests. Minimal transparency beyond the basic operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, containing no fluff. It is appropriately compact and front-loaded with the action and constraint.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete by stating the action and network restriction. It could mention request limits or success indicators, but the current content suffices for a basic faucet request.

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% with a clear description 'Address to fund'. The tool description adds 'Request SUI from the faucet', which implies the address is the recipient. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 states the verb 'request' and resource 'SUI from the faucet', and adds the network constraint '(devnet/testnet only)'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which are unrelated operations like queries and transfers.

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?

The description includes a clear usage constraint: 'devnet/testnet only'. This guides the agent on when to use it. However, it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings, which are not needed given the unique purpose.

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