Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

bulk_register

Destructive

Register multiple ENS names in bulk — total 2 transactions (multiCommit + multiRegister) via NWBulkRegistrar.

Much cheaper and faster than registering names one at a time. Supports up to 20 names per batch.

Flow: multiCommit (1 tx, all N commitments) → wait 60 seconds → multiRegister (1 tx with total ETH for all N names). Excess ETH is refunded.

Each batch shares one secret across all names; uniqueness comes from the per-name label inside each commitment hash. All names must be available for registration.

After registration, use bulk_set_records to configure all names at once with addresses, text records, and content hashes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYesArray of ENS names to register (e.g. ["coffee.eth", "tea.eth"]). Max 20 per batch.
durationNoRegistration duration in days, applied to every name in the batch. ENS protocol minimum is 28 days; maximum is 3650 (10 years); default is 365 (1 year).
durationYearsNoDEPRECATED — use duration (days) instead. Number of years (converted to days internally).
walletAddressYesWallet address that will own all registered names

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which aligns with registration. Description adds context: 2-step process, 60-second wait, shared secret, reliance on name availability, and excess ETH refund. No contradictions with annotations and adds significant behavioral detail beyond structured metadata.

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?

Extremely concise yet comprehensive. First sentence defines purpose, followed by benefit, detailed flow, constraints, and next steps. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the registration process, prerequisites (names must be available), and post-registration action. Minor omission: does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hashes), but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. Overall well-rounded.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The tool description reiterates some (e.g., duration applied to all names, walletAddress as owner) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The deprecated 'durationYears' parameter is clarified, but otherwise 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?

Clearly states the tool registers multiple ENS names in bulk, distinguishing it from single-registration tools like purchase_name and post-registration tools like bulk_set_records. The two-transaction flow is explained.

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?

Explicitly states it's cheaper/faster than one-at-a-time, supports up to 20 names, and recommends bulk_set_records afterward. Could improve by mentioning when not to use (e.g., if per-name secrets needed) but still provides clear guidance.

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

All Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but some pairs (e.g., search_ens_names vs enumerate_entities, batch_purchase vs sweep) could cause confusion due to overlapping functionality. The descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases ambiguity risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_name_details, set_ens_records, batch_create_listings). Naming conventions are uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool purpose from the name.

Tool Count4/5

With 44 tools, the server is quite comprehensive, covering a wide range of ENS operations. While this exceeds the typical 3-15 tool count, the scope of the domain (marketplace, registration, agent identity, etc.) justifies the number, and tools are well-organized into logical groups.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of ENS names: registration, renewal, wrapping, transfers, marketplace actions (listings, offers, purchases), record management, subnames, agent identity, and market intelligence. No obvious gaps are present for an ENS intelligence platform.

Resources