Fuse Network

Resolve ENS name

fuse_resolve_ens

Resolves an ENS name to its EVM address. ENS is not deployed on Fuse — resolution requires ENS_RPC_URL to be configured (typically pointing at Ethereum mainnet). Plain hex addresses are passed through.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "fuse_resolve_ens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	ENS name to resolve (e.g. `vitalik.eth`). Plain addresses are returned unchanged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that ENS resolution depends on Ethereum mainnet access via a configurable RPC URL, and that plain addresses are returned unchanged. This reveals key behaviors beyond the basic action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main action, followed by essential context. No wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple resolution tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, prerequisite (ENS_RPC_URL), and edge case (pass-through). Could mention return format, but it's 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 a good parameter description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, noting that plain addresses are passed through. This meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance 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?

Description clearly states 'Resolves an ENS name to its EVM address', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from all sibling tools (none are for ENS resolution), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit context: ENS not deployed on Fuse, requires external ENS_RPC_URL configuration, and plain hex addresses pass through. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, this information sufficiently guides the agent on appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Fuse Network tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?