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

sui-mcp-server

by ExpertVagabond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

request_withdraw_stake

Initiate withdrawal of staked SUI by specifying the wallet and stake object ID.

Instructions

Withdraw staked SUI.

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": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "stakeObjectId": "<stakeObjectId>"
    },
    "name": "request_withdraw_stake"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesWallet name
stakeObjectIdYesStakedSui object ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the stake object. Agent cannot infer if this is a read-only or state-changing operation.

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?

Extremely concise (4 words). Each word is necessary, but the description lacks structural elements like front-loaded key information. However, given simplicity, it is not overly verbose.

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?

Lacks information about result or return value (no output schema). Does not explain what happens after withdrawal or any potential side effects. For a simple tool, some behavioral context is missing.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (withdraw) and resource (staked SUI), distinguishing it from sibling tool request_add_stake. However, does not elaborate on what 'staked SUI' means, relying on the schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool request_add_stake is present but not referenced. Lacks context such as prerequisites or conditions.

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