Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

wrap_name

Destructive

Wrap an unwrapped .eth name into the ENS NameWrapper contract.

Wrapping converts the name from an ERC-721 token (BaseRegistrar) to an ERC-1155 token (NameWrapper). This enables:

  • Fuse permissions (restrict what can be done with the name)

  • Protected subnames (subnames with guaranteed permissions)

  • ERC-1155 compatibility for marketplaces and protocols

Returns a two-step transaction recipe: approve + wrap.

Available fuses (all IRREVERSIBLE once burned):

  • CANNOT_UNWRAP — prevents unwrapping back to BaseRegistrar

  • 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 new subnames

  • CANNOT_APPROVE — prevents approving operators

CANNOT_UNWRAP must be burned before any other fuses can be burned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name to wrap (e.g. "coffee.eth")
fusesNoOptional fuses to burn on wrap (e.g. ["CANNOT_UNWRAP"]). WARNING: irreversible.
ownerYesAddress of the current name owner (must own the BaseRegistrar token)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description elaborates with details about irreversible fuses, the two-step process, and the list of available fuses. No contradiction; it fully discloses the behavioral traits and risks.

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 moderately long but well-structured with bullet points for fuses. Each sentence serves a purpose; however, 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.

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return type (two-step recipe). It lacks exact output format but is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 beyond schema: it explains the name format with an example, warns about fuses being irreversible, and clarifies the owner requirement. This enhances parameter understanding.

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: 'Wrap an unwrapped .eth name into the ENS NameWrapper contract.' It explains the conversion from ERC-721 to ERC-1155 and lists benefits like fuse permissions and subnames, distinguishing it from siblings like unwrap_name and manage_fuses.

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 context on when to use the tool (to enable fuse permissions, protected subnames, ERC-1155 support) and mentions the two-step transaction recipe. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 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