Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

unwrap_name

Destructive

Unwrap a .eth name from the ENS NameWrapper back to BaseRegistrar.

This converts the name from an ERC-1155 token back to an ERC-721 token. All fuses are cleared upon unwrapping.

Will fail if the CANNOT_UNWRAP fuse has been burned — that restriction is permanent.

Use cases:

  • Reverting a wrapped name to standard ERC-721 for compatibility

  • Regaining full control after wrapping without burning CANNOT_UNWRAP

  • Moving a name to a platform that only supports ERC-721

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name to unwrap (e.g. "coffee.eth")
ownerYesAddress of the current wrapped name owner

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructive behavior. Description adds that 'all fuses are cleared upon unwrapping' and describes the permanent failure condition, going 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two core sentences and a list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, no clutter. Front-loaded with the main action and outcome.

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 transformation, fuse clearing, failure condition, and use cases. No output schema, so return values not needed. Could mention prerequisite of being wrapped, but implied.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. Description adds an example for 'name' and reinforces that 'owner' is the current owner, but adds limited new 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?

The description states 'Unwrap a .eth name from the ENS NameWrapper back to BaseRegistrar' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like wrap_name. It also clarifies the conversion from ERC-1155 to ERC-721.

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?

Three explicit use cases are listed, but no direct comparison with alternatives like manage_fuses. The failure condition (CANNOT_UNWRAP fuse burned) provides context for when not to use it.

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