sui-mcp-server

sui_get_datatype

Retrieve a Move datatype definition including its fields, abilities, and type parameters for any struct or enum on Sui.

Instructions

Get a Move datatype (struct or enum) definition — its fields, abilities, and type parameters.

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": {
      "package_id": "<package_id>",
      "module_name": "<module_name>",
      "datatype_name": "<datatype_name>"
    },
    "name": "sui_get_datatype"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`package_id`	Yes
`module_name`	Yes
`datatype_name`	Yes
`network`	No	Sui network. Defaults to the server's configured default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description indicates a read-only operation ('Get') with no side effects. No annotations exist to provide additional safety info. Explanation of behavior is adequate but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no extraneous words. Every element ('Get', 'Move datatype', 'fields, abilities, type parameters') is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the output content (fields, abilities, type parameters) well, given no output schema. However, parameter descriptions are lacking, and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 3 required) demands more contextual detail for full understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the tool's purpose. It does not explain the meaning or format of package_id, module_name, or datatype_name, missing an opportunity to compensate for sparse schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a Move datatype definition, specifying struct or enum, and lists included components (fields, abilities, type parameters). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sui_get_function and sui_get_object by focusing on datatype definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving datatype information but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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