Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

set_primary_name

DestructiveIdempotent

Set the primary ENS name (reverse resolution) for a wallet address.

This controls what name is displayed when someone looks up your Ethereum address. For example, instead of seeing "0x1234...abcd", they'd see "myname.eth".

Requirements:

  • You must own or control the ENS name

  • The name's ETH address record must point to your wallet

  • Only the wallet owner can set their own primary name

When a user says "set my primary name" / "make X my primary", JUST call this tool — it bundles BOTH transactions (set the ETH address record + set the reverse record) into a single sign-card. Do NOT also call set_ens_records separately for this. After the user signs, verify it landed with get_primary_name.

Only one primary name per address — setting a new one replaces the previous.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name to set as primary (e.g. "myname.eth")
walletAddressYesWallet address to set the primary name for (must sign the transaction)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals important behaviors beyond annotations: it bundles two transactions (set ETH address record + set reverse record) into a single sign-card, requires ownership and signing, and notes that setting a new primary replaces the previous one (destructive). Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true) are consistent but the description adds context.

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 a main sentence, example, bulleted requirements, and usage workflow. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's complexity: bundling of transactions, ownership prerequisites, single primary per address, and post-signing verification via get_primary_name. It leaves no critical gaps for the agent.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds vital context: 'walletAddress' must be the signer, and 'name' must be owned/controlled. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and the operation, enhancing beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the primary ENS name (reverse resolution) for a wallet address.' It provides an illustrative example and explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling 'set_ens_records' by instructing not to call that separately, ensuring proper usage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When a user says "set my primary name" / "make X my primary", JUST call this tool.' It lists requirements (ownership, ETH address record pointing, only wallet owner) and warns against calling set_ens_records additionally. It also advises verification with get_primary_name.

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