Skip to main content
Glama

DERO MCP Server

by io.github.DHEBP

dero_name_to_address

Read-only

Resolve a DERO on-chain registered name to its address via DERO.NameToAddress.

When to call: when a user supplies a human-readable name (e.g. "myname") instead of a dero1.../deto1... address.

Input Requirements (CRITICAL):

  • name MUST be a non-empty string. Resolution is case-sensitive on the daemon side.

  • topoheight MUST be an integer; use -1 for the latest registry state.

Output: { name, address }. On NOT_FOUND the daemon's RPC error is surfaced as a structured _meta.error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRegistered name
topoheightYesUse -1 for latest

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds extra behavioral details like case-sensitivity and the meaning of topoheight=-1 beyond the annotation. It does not contradict 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?

The description is extremely concise, with no redundant information. It follows a clear structure: purpose, when to call, input requirements, output. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the input parameters, the output format, and the error case (NOT_FOUND). It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing further context.

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?

The input schema already covers types, requirements, and descriptions. The description adds semantics like the case-sensitive resolution and the special value -1 for topoheight, which go 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 action (resolve) and the resource (DERO registered name to address). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on name resolution, which is unique among the listed tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: when a user supplies a human-readable name instead of an address. Also provides detailed input requirements (non-empty string, integer topoheight, -1 for latest), giving clear usage context.

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

All DERO MCP Server 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to call it and how it differs from similar tools. Composite tools are well-defined, overlapping concerns are minimized.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a general pattern: 'dero_' for core daemon RPC wrappers, 'tela_' for TELA-specific composites, and descriptive names for other composites. While mostly consistent, there are exceptions like 'audit_chain_artifact_claim' and 'dero_durl_to_scid' breaking the pattern slightly.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy. However, each tool serves a specific need in the DERO ecosystem, covering chain queries, docs, TELA, and composite analyses. The count is justifiable given the domain breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core chain operations, documentation, TELA app lifecycle, and common analytical tasks. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of wallet interaction tools or transaction submission, but these are outside the apparent read-only/analysis scope.

Resources