Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

manage_fuses

DestructiveIdempotent

Manage fuses on a wrapped ENS name. Fuses are permission bits that can be permanently burned to restrict what can be done with a name.

Three modes:

  1. read — Check which fuses are currently burned on a name

  2. burn_owner_fuses — Burn fuses on a name you own (CANNOT_UNWRAP must be burned first)

  3. burn_child_fuses — As a parent, burn fuses on a subname (e.g. burn PARENT_CANNOT_CONTROL on sub.parent.eth)

Owner-controlled fuses:

  • CANNOT_UNWRAP — prevents unwrapping (MUST be burned first before any other fuse)

  • CANNOT_BURN_FUSES — prevents burning additional fuses

  • CANNOT_TRANSFER — prevents transfers

  • CANNOT_SET_RESOLVER — prevents resolver changes

  • CANNOT_SET_TTL — prevents TTL changes

  • CANNOT_CREATE_SUBDOMAIN — prevents creating new subnames

  • CANNOT_APPROVE — prevents approving operators

Parent-controlled fuses (for subnames):

  • PARENT_CANNOT_CONTROL — parent permanently gives up control over the subname

  • CAN_EXTEND_EXPIRY — allows the subname owner to extend their own expiry

WARNING: All fuse burning is IRREVERSIBLE. Fuses expire when the name expires.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name to manage fuses on (e.g. "coffee.eth" for owner fuses, or "sub.coffee.eth" for child fuses)
fusesNoFuses to burn. Required for burn actions, optional for read. Owner fuses: CANNOT_UNWRAP, CANNOT_BURN_FUSES, CANNOT_TRANSFER, CANNOT_SET_RESOLVER, CANNOT_SET_TTL, CANNOT_CREATE_SUBDOMAIN, CANNOT_APPROVE. Parent-controlled fuses (for subnames): PARENT_CANNOT_CONTROL, CAN_EXTEND_EXPIRY.
actionNoAction: "burn_owner_fuses" burns fuses on a name you own, "burn_child_fuses" burns fuses on a subname you are parent of, "read" reads current fusesread
expiryNoFor burn_child_fuses only: Unix timestamp for subname expiry (cannot exceed parent expiry)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly warns that all fuse burning is IRREVERSIBLE, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It also notes that fuses expire when the name expires, adding behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is slightly lengthy but highly informative, with no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers modes, prerequisites, and fuse types. It could briefly mention the return format for read mode, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the meaning of each fuse and the role of the expiry parameter for burn_child_fuses. This context enriches the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool manages fuses on a wrapped ENS name, with three specific modes (read, burn_owner_fuses, burn_child_fuses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wrap_name or transfer_ens_name.

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 provides clear context for each mode, including prerequisites (e.g., CANNOT_UNWRAP must be burned first for burn_owner_fuses). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the mode descriptions effectively guide usage.

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

Try in Browser

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.