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

sui-mcp-server

by ExpertVagabond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

suins_get_name_record

Retrieve detailed SuiNS name record including NFT ID, target address, expiration, and metadata for a given .sui name.

Instructions

Get detailed SuiNS name record — NFT ID, target address, expiration, metadata.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "suins_get_name_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSuiNS name (e.g. example.sui)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and lists returned fields, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 that efficiently conveys the purpose and key return fields. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete, naming the main return fields. However, it could be improved by noting that the record may not exist, or by listing all expected fields explicitly.

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% (one parameter with a clear description). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 specifies the action 'Get', the resource 'detailed SuiNS name record', and lists the key attributes returned (NFT ID, target address, expiration, metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like suins_get_price or resolve_name.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed record info, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., resolve_address for address lookup, suins_get_price for pricing). The context of 'detailed' vs other operations is clear, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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