sui-mcp-server

sui_get_epoch

Retrieve detailed metadata for any Sui epoch, including committee, system state, checkpoints, and reference gas price. Specify 'current' for the live epoch.

Instructions

Fetch metadata for an epoch — committee, system state, first/last checkpoint, reference gas price. Use epoch='current' for the live epoch.

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": {
      "epoch": "<epoch>"
    },
    "name": "sui_get_epoch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`epoch`	Yes	Epoch number as string, or 'current' for the active epoch.
`network`	No	Sui network. Defaults to the server's configured default (usually mainnet).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the returned fields (committee, system state, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines purpose and key data returned; the second provides a usage tip. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description lists several key return fields and explains both parameters well. It lacks only a complete list of all possible fields, but is sufficient for typical use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'current' usage and network defaults, but this largely repeats the schema. Additional value is minimal.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('metadata for an epoch') with clear fields listed (committee, system state, first/last checkpoint, reference gas price). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sui_get_checkpoint by specifying epoch scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using 'current' for the live epoch, which aids in parameter selection. However, no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice relative to similar tools (e.g., sui_get_checkpoint) is given.

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