Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Blockscout MCP Server

Blockscout MCP Server

Official
by blockscout
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_address_by_ens_name

Read-only

Convert ENS domain names to Ethereum addresses using blockchain data from the Blockscout MCP Server.

Instructions

Useful for when you need to convert an ENS domain name (e.g. "blockscout.eth") to its corresponding Ethereum address.

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": "get_address_by_ens_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS domain name to resolve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful context about the conversion process but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid ENS names.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and it directly addresses the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple single-parameter input, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values (e.g., address format, null for unresolved names), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing that it's an 'ENS domain name' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('ENS domain name to Ethereum address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on ENS resolution rather than general address info or blockchain data retrieval.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when you need to convert an ENS domain name'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_address_info' which might handle non-ENS addresses.

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