sui-mcp-server

sui_list_dynamic_fields

List dynamic fields attached to a parent object on Sui blockchain, enabling crawling of tables, bags, and dynamic object fields.

Instructions

List dynamic fields attached to a parent object. Useful when crawling tables/bags/dynamic object fields.

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": {
      "parent": "<parent>"
    },
    "name": "sui_list_dynamic_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`parent`	Yes	0x-prefixed parent object id.
`page_size`	No
`page_token`	No
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tool lists fields, without mentioning safety (read-only vs. mutation), rate limits, or pagination behavior details beyond parameter names. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with key information. It avoids fluff but could be more informative within the same length, e.g., explaining return format.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of dynamic field names/types). It does not. Coupled with partial schema coverage and missing pagination behavior, the description feels incomplete for a list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, but the tool description does not clarify the uncovered parameters (page_size, page_token) beyond the schema. Even the covered parameters lack additional context. The description adds no value over the schema, failing to compensate for missing param descriptions.

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 specific verb 'List' and resource 'dynamic fields attached to a parent object', with context hinting at crawling tables/bags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sui_get_object or sui_batch_get_objects, which serve different purposes.

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?

Description says 'Useful when crawling tables/bags/dynamic object fields', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, missing some completeness for a top score.

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