Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

register_agent

Register an ENS name as an ERC-8004 agent identity on Ethereum mainnet. Returns a ready-to-sign transaction.

Default route binds the agent to the name itself (ERC-8217 via Adapter8004): whoever holds the name controls the agent, OpenSea shows the agent identity on the name's page, and the agent transfers with the name when sold. Alternative "direct" route mints the agent NFT to your wallet instead.

The agentURI defaults to a NameWhisper-hosted registration file generated live from the name's ENS records — set your agent-context and agent-endpoint records (set_ens_records) and the file updates automatically.

IMPORTANT: after this transaction confirms, read the new agentId from the receipt (topic 1 of the Registered/AgentBound event) and call set_ens_records with the agentRegistration shorthand to write the ENSIP-25 binding record. The identity is not verifiable until that record is on-chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name to register as an agent (e.g. "myagent.eth"). You must own it.
routeNoadapter (default): bind the agent to the name via ERC-8217 — control and marketplace visibility follow the name. direct: mint the agent NFT to your wallet, independent of the name.adapter
agentURINoOverride the agent registration file URI. Defaults to NameWhisper's hosted file, which is built live from the name's ENS records (agent-context, endpoints) so it stays current automatically.
walletAddressNoWallet that will sign the transaction. For the adapter route this MUST be the name's current token holder. Auto-filled from ERC-8128 auth when omitted.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it returns a ready-to-sign transaction, explains the default and direct routes, states the prerequisite of owning the name, and warns that the identity is not verifiable until a subsequent record is on-chain. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with paragraphs and a bolded important note. Every sentence provides necessary information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential context: the multi-step registration process, route options, prerequisites, post-requisites, and default behavior. No critical information is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds significant value: it explains the meaning and impact of the route enum, the default behavior of agentURI, and the constraint on walletAddress for the adapter route. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Register an ENS name as an ERC-8004 agent identity on Ethereum mainnet.' It specifies the verb (register), resource (ENS name as agent identity), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning ERC-8004 and the two routes. No ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use the tool and how to proceed after confirmation, including the critical step of calling set_ens_records. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it directly with alternatives like provision_agent_identity.

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