Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

bulk_set_records

DestructiveIdempotent

Set ENS resolver records for multiple names in a single transaction — bulk record editing.

All record updates across all names are batched into one resolver.multicall() call. Much cheaper than setting records one name at a time.

Supports the same record types as set_ens_records: address records (ETH, BTC, SOL, etc.), text records (avatar, description, social handles, AI agent metadata), content hash (IPFS/IPNS), and ENSIP-25 agent-registration records.

You can set different records for each name (e.g., unique avatars) or the same records across all names (e.g., same ETH address).

Max 50 names per batch. The wallet signing the transaction must be the owner/manager of all included names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameRecordsYesArray of name + records pairs. Max 50 names per batch.
walletAddressYesWallet address that owns these names (must sign the transaction)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the batching mechanism (multicall), cost efficiency, and supported record types. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with no extraneous sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, batching benefit, supported records, flexibility of different/same records, limits, and ownership requirement.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameters and behavioral constraints. It does not explain return values or error handling, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable as the agent can infer success from transaction completion.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the structure of nameRecords, the max 50 limit, the wallet ownership requirement, and enumerating supported record types (addresses, texts, content hash, agent registration).

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 states it sets ENS resolver records for multiple names in a single transaction, using a specific verb ('set') and resource ('ENS resolver records'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_ens_records by explicitly mentioning batch editing and cost efficiency.

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 explains when to use (batch editing, cheaper than one-at-a-time) and provides constraints (max 50 names, owner/manager requirement). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the contrast with set_ens_records is clear.

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