Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

mint_subnames

Bulk-create subnames under a parent ENS name in a single transaction. Designed for agent fleet deployment — create identities like agent001.company.eth, agent002.company.eth, etc. Each subname can have its own owner and records (addresses, text records).

All N subnames bundle into ONE NameWrapper.multicall transaction (all-or-nothing). All record updates across all subnames bundle into ONE Resolver.multicall transaction. If the parent is unwrapped, the recipe prepends a one-time wrap setup (approve + wrapETH2LD) — after that, every subsequent batch on the same parent is a single signature.

Returns a flat steps[] array — each step is one wallet signature, in order. Subnames are free to create; only gas costs apply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subnamesYesArray of subnames to create (max 50 per batch)
parentNameYesParent ENS name (e.g. "company.eth")
walletAddressYesWallet address that owns the parent name
allowOverwriteNoDefault false. If false, throws when any subname already exists. Set true to overwrite existing subnames (destructive — replaces current owner).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations show no destructive hint, but description explains allowOverwrite is destructive, causing minor contradiction. However, description details transaction bundling, wrap setup, and all-or-nothing behavior, adding value 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?

Well-structured paragraph with purpose first, followed by transaction details and return format. No fluff, but could be slightly shorter.

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?

Covers return format (steps array), transaction mechanics, and cost. Lacks error details beyond allowOverwrite, but sufficient for a bulk creation tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds context like max 50 subnames and cost, but does not significantly deepen parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 'Bulk-create subnames under a parent ENS name' with specific verb and resource, distinguishes from siblings like bulk_set_records. Example usage ('agent001.company.eth') solidifies purpose.

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 designed for agent fleet deployment, gives context for bulk creation. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context 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