Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UluAlgorandMCP

UluAlgorandMCP

by MaidToShelly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

resolve_name

Resolve an Algorand name to its address and metadata using the static registry data.

Instructions

Resolve an Algorand name (e.g. 'example.algo') to its address and metadata from the static registry. For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP or NFDomains API.

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": "resolve_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAlgorand name to resolve (e.g. 'pera.algo')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that this is a static registry lookup, not live resolution, which is important context. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a simple read lookup the core behavior is clear.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter lookup with complete schema metadata, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and return type (address and metadata). It also differentiates from live-resolution tools. Minor gaps like error behavior are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description repeats the example format already in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's own parameter description, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves an Algorand name to its address and metadata, with a specific resource (names) and scope (static registry). It also distinguishes from live-resolution tools by explicitly mentioning the static registry and naming alternates.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for static registry resolution) and provides clear alternatives ('For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP or NFDomains API'). This gives the agent a direct decision rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools